^iiil 










^CP<^ 



t/^^ ^ V 






^o 






.^^\ . 



c?\- 






>«^ 



9x '^/:; 


















.^^ 






I ,, 



■^n 









s. > 






z::.^:^ 



,^' 



.^-^ ■?<• 









0^"^.- 



0^ 9<. 



rft^ 






> %. A' 






.r.^vf,a; 



^^^ << 









■^^0^ 






v^ 



*■■ 



'^^^ \-^^^J'^' 



^^ "' 



\^#' 



o ^ ^ ^ \V O, . / * <, ^ ^ V 



"^O. " 



. ^^. 



;, ^.s^ 












- ^ 



.A"- 



,.,jr: ■ay ■<<> 

" ^ ^^.-'s^' A*^^ <:^ ^'/7Vs^^ A<^^ 

= %.^^^ : : „ . 







G^'-^ 


% 


0^ 




^ 


o^. 


' ~- 


\ < 


*o^ 


^- 






. ^^^<^ 



•A 






^.^0^ 



^ ^ 



V j^>V/h/; V ^^ 



G^ 



"^v 









— . ^^, 
























j5 o^ 



(CX ' it {, -^ \ V 



9^ 






V>^ . 



\> /-^^-^^ > 






^ .^.^ 









- t 









^0^ 



c?' .*-' V"'. ^<t 






r<^ 









^^ 



c 



O" 



Q^ ' -^ -:' ^ 






V 









RECENT 



SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES 



BY 



V/ 



CHARLES SUMNER 



Such busy multitudes I fain would see 
Stand upon Free Soil with a people free. 

Goethe's Fadst. 

Nihil autem gloriosius libertate, praeter virtutem, si tamen libertas recte a 
virtute sejungitur. — John of Salisbury. 




BOSTON: 
TICKNOR AND FIELDS 

M DCCC LVI. 



•G 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 

TiCKNOR AND FlELDS. 

In the Clerk's Oflace of the District Court of the District of JIassachusetts. 



OA SI bridge: 

STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY THURSTON AND TORRT. 



/ 



Jli-O 



^? 



CONTENTS. 



ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF SENATOR OF THE UNITED 
STATES. LETTER TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

14th MAY, 1851 1-5 

WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, IOtH DEC, 1851 6-14 

JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES AND POLICY OF ROADS. SPEECHES 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE IOWA RAIL- 
ROAD BILL, 27th JAN., 17tH FEB., AND IGtH MARCH, 

1855 15-43 

CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED 
STATES ON HIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO CHEAP OCEAN 
POSTAGE, 8tH MARCH, 1852 44-47 

THE PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. ARGUMENT SUB- 
MITTED TO THE PRESIDENT 14tH MAY, 1852, UPON THE 
APPLICATION FOR THE PARDON OF DRAYTON AND SAYRES, 
DETAINED IN PRISON AT WASHINGTON FOR HELPING THE 
ESCAPE OF SLAVES . .* 48-61 

TRIBUTE TO MR RANTOUL. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ON THE DEATH OF HON. ROBERT RANTOUL, 

JR., Oth august, 1852 62-08 

FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. SPEECH IN THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 2GtH AUGUST, 1852, ON 
HIS MOTION TO REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL . 69-171 



Vl CONTENTS. 

TRIBUTE TO MR. DOWNING. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE 

UNITED STATES, IN FAVOR OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE 

WIDOW OP THE LATE ANDREW J. DOWNING, 26tH AUGUST, 

1852 172-174 

THE PARTY OF FREEDOM ; ITS NECESSITY AND PRACTICABIL- 
ITY. SPEECH AT THE STATE CONTENTION OF THE FREE 
SOIL PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS, HELD AT LOWELL, 16tH 

SEPT., 1852 175-183 

CiyiL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. SPEECH IN THE SEN- 
ATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE PROPOSITION TO 
CHANGE THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 23d FEB. 

1853 184-187 

AGAINST SECRECY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE. 
SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
PROPOSITION TO LIMIT THE SECRET SESSIONS OF THE SENATE, 

6th APRIL, 1853 188-190 

THE POWERS OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. SPEECHES ON 
THE MILITIA GENERALLY AND A COLORED MILITIA, IN THE 
CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF 
MASSACHUSETTS, 21 ST AND 22d JUNE, 1853 . 191-202 

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM AND ITS PROPER BASIS. SPEECH 
ON THE PROPOSITION TO AMEND THE BASIS OF THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN the CONVEN- 
TION • TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT 

STATE, 7th JULY, 1853 203 - 232 

BILLS OF RIGHTS ; THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. SPEECH ON 
THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 
IN THE CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITU- 
TION OF MASSACHUSETTS, 25tH JULY, 1853 . 233-241 

FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK. SPEECH AT THE PLYM- 
OUTH FESTIVAL IN COMMEMORATION OF THE EMBARKATION 
OF THE PILGRIMS, IST AUGUST, 1853 . . . 242-248 



CONTENTS. VU 

THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; FREEDOM NATIONAL. SPEECH 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST THE RE- 
PEAL OF THE MISSOURI PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY NORTH OF 
36° 30' IN THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, 21 ST FEB. 

1854 249-314 

FINAL PROTEST FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY OF NEW ENG- 
LAND AGAINST SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. SPEECH 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE NIGHT OF 
THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, 

25th MAY, 1854 315-326 

DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. SPEECHES IN THE SENATE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ON THE BOSTON MEMORIAL FOR THE REPEAL 
OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, AND IN REPLY TO MESSRS. 
JONES, OF TENNESSEE, BUTLER, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND 
MASON, OF VIRGINIA, 26tH AND 28tH JUNE . 327 - 371 

STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. IN THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 31ST JULY, 1854, 372-387 

THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. SPEECH 
BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WORCES- 
TER, 7th SEPTEMBER, 1854 388-411 

THE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT ; ILLUSTRATED 
BY THE LIFE OF GRANVILLE SHARP. AN ADDRESS BEFORE 
THE MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON, ON THE 

EVENING OF 15th NOV., 1854 412-449 

THE DEMANDS OF FREEDOM — REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE 
BILL. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
AGAINST MR. TOUCEY's BILL, AND FOR THE REPR<\L OF THE 
FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 23d FEB., 1855 . . . 450-467 

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. SPEECH IN THE SEN- 
ATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON INTRODUCING A BILL TO 
SECURE WAGES TO SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK, 28tH FEB., 

1855 468-474 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

THE ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABIL- 
ITY AND DIGNITY, WITH GLIMPSES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES 
OF THE NORTH. ADDRESS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, 
AT THE METROPOLITAN THEATRE, 9th MAY, 1855 475 - 521 

THE SLATE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS — THE OUT- 
RAGES IN KANSAS THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES 

THE REPUBLICAN" PARTY. SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, 
ON THE EYENING OF 2d NOY., 1855 . . . 522-562 



ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF SENATOR OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 

LETTER TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
14th may, 1851. 

Read in the Senate by Hon. Henry Wilson, President, and in 
the House of Representatives by Hon. N. P. Banks, Speaker. 



Fellow-citizexs of the Senate and House of 
Representatites : 

I HAVE received by the hands of the Secretary of 
the Commonwealth a certificate, that, by concurrent 
votes of the two branches of the Legislature, namely, 
by the Senate, on the 22d day of January, and by the 
House of Representatives, on the 24th day of April, I 
was duly elected, in conformity to the provisions of 
the Constitution and Laws of the United States, a 
Senator to represent the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts, in the Senate of the United States, for the 
term of six years, commencing on the 4th. day of 
March, 1851. 

If I were to follow the customary course, I should 
receive this in silence. But the protracted and unpre- 
cedented contest which ended in my election, — the 
1 



2 ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF 

interest it awakened, — the importance universally 
conceded to it, — the ardor of opposition and the 
constancy of support which it aroused, — also the 
principles, which more than ever among us, it brought 
into discussion, seem to justify, what my own feelings 
irresistibly prompt, a departure from this rule. If, 
beyond these considerations, any apology may be 
needed for thus directly addressing the Legislature, 
I may find it in the example of an illustrious prede- 
cessor, whose clear and venerable name will be a 
sufficient authority.* 

The trust conferred on me is one of the most 
weighty which a citizen can receive. It concerns 
the grandest interests of our own Commonwealth, 
and also of the Union whereof we are an indissoluble 
part. Like every post of eminent duty, it is a post 
of eminent honor. A personal ambition, such as I 
cannot confess, might be satisfied to possess it. But 
when I think what it requires, I am obliged to 
say, that its honors are all eclipsed in my sight by 
its duties. 

Your appointment finds me in a private station, 
with which I am entirely content. But this is not 
all. For the first time in my life, I am now called 
to political office. "With none of the experience so 
amply possessed by others, to smooth the way of 
labor, I might well hesitate. But I am cheered by 
the generous confidence, which, throughout a length- 
ened contest, persevered in sustaining me, and by 
the conviction that, amidst all seeming diff'erences of 
party, the sentiments, of which I am the known advo- 

♦ John Quincy Adams. 



SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES. 3 

catc, and wliicli led to my ori<;jinal selection as a 
candidate, are dear to the hearts of a large majority 
of the people of this Commonwealth. I derive, also, 
a most grateful consciousness of personal indepen- 
dence from the circumstance, which I deem it frank 
and proper thus publicly to declare and place on 
record, that this office comes to me, unsought and 
undesired. 

Acknowledging the right of my country to the 
service of her sons wherever she chooses to place 
them, and with a heart full of gratitude that a sacred 
cause has been permitted to triumph through me, I 
now accept the post of Senator. 

I accept it as the servant of Massachusetts ; mindful 
of the sentiments solemnly uttered by her successive 
Legislatures ; of the genius which inspires her history ; 
and of the men, her perpetual pride and ornament, 
who breathed into her that breath of Liberty, which 
early made her an example to her sister States. In 
such a service, the way, though new to my footsteps, 
will be illumined by lights which cannot be missed. 

I accept it as the servant of the Union ; bound to 
study and maintain, with equal patriotic care, the 
interests of all parts of our country ; to discounte- 
nance every effort to loosen any of those ties by 
which our fellowship of States is held in fraternal 
company ; and to oppose all sectionalism, whether it 
appear in unconstitutional efforts by the North to 
carry so great a boon as Freedom into the slave 
States, or in unconstitutional efforts by the South, 
aided by Northern allies, to carry the sectional evil 
of Slavery into the free States ; or in whatsoever 
efforts it may make to extend the sectional domination 



4 ACCErTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF 

of Slavery over the National Government. — "With 
me the Union is twice-blessed ; first, as the powerful 
guardian of the repose and happiness of thirty-one 
sovereign States, clasped by the endearing name of 
country ; and next, as the model and beginning of 
that all-embracing Federation of States, by which 
unity, peace and concord will finally be organized 
among the nations. Nor do I believe it possible, 
whatever may be the delusion of the hour, that any 
part thereof can be permanently lost from its well- 
compacted bulk. E Plurihus TJniim is stamped upon 
the national coin, the national territory, and the 
national heart. Though composed of many parts 
united into one, the Union is separable only by a 
crash which shall destroy the whole. 

Entering now upon the public service, I venture to 
bespeak for what I may do or say that candid judg- 
ment, which I trust always to extend to others, but 
which I am well aware the prejudices of party too 
rarely concede. I may fail in ability ; but not in 
sincere efforts to promote the general weal. In the 
conflicts of opinion, natural to the atmosphere of 
liberal institutions, I may err ; but I trust never to 
forget the prudence which should temper firmness, or 
the modesty which becomes the consciousness of right. 
If I decline to recognize as my guides any of the men 
of to-day, I shall feel safe, while I follow the master 
principles which the Union was established to secure, 
and lean for support on the great triumvirate of 
American Freedom — Washington, Franklin and Jef- 
ferson. And since true politics are simply morals 
applied to public affairs, I shall find constant assist- 
ance from those everlasting rules of right and wrong, 



SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES. 5 

which are a law alike to individuals and communities : 
nay, which constrain the omnipotent God in self- 
imposed bonds. 

Let me borrow, in conclusion, the language of 
another : "I see my duty ; that of standing up for 
the liberties of my country ; and whatever difficulties 
and discouragements lie in my way, I dare not shrink 
from it ; and I rely on that Being, who has not left to 
us the choice of duties, that whilst I shall conscien- 
tiously discharge mine, I shall not finally lose my 
reward." These are the words of Washington, uttered 
in the early darkness of the American Revolution. 
The rule of duty is the same for the lowly and the 
great ; and I hope it may not seem presumptuous in 
one so humble as myself to adopt his determination, 
and to avow his confidence. 

I have the honor to be, fellow-citizens, 
With sincere regard. 

Your faithful friend and servant, 

CHARLES SUMNER. 
Boston, May 14, 1851. 



1* 



WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IOtH DEC. 1851. 



I Mr. Seward, of New York, brought forward in the 

i Senate the following!; joint resolution : 

*' Be it Resolved, <Sfc., That Congress, in the name and 
behalf of the people of the United States, give to Louis 
Kossuth a cordial welcome to the capital and to the coun- 
try, and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to 
, him by the President of the United States." 

December 9th, Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, addressed the 
Senate at length in opposition to any action by Congress, 
and, in closing his speech, moved the following amend- 
ment : 

" And be it further Resolved, That the welcome thus 
afforded to Louis Kossuth be extended to his associates who 
have landed on our shores ; but while welcoming these 
Hungarian patriots to an asylum in our countr}'^, and to 
the protection which our laws do and always will afibrd to 
them, it is due to candor to declare that it is not the pur- 
pose of Congress to depar£ from the settled policy of this 
Government, which forbids all interference with the domes- 
tic concerns of other nations." 

December 10th, on motion of Mr. Seward, the Senate 
proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being 
his resolution of welcome to Kossuth. 

Mr. Sumner then addressed the Senate as fol- 
lows : 

Mr. President : — Words are sometimes things ; 
and I cannot disguise from myself that the resolution 

[6J 



WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 7 

ill honor of Louis Kossuth, now pending before the 
Senate, when finally passed, will be an act of no small 
significance in the history of our country. The Sen- 
ator from Georgia [Mr. Berrien] was right when he 
said that it was no unmeaning compliment. Beyond 
its immediate welcome to an illustrious stranger, it 
will help to combine and direct the sentiments of our 
own people everywhere ; it will inspire all in other 
lands who are engaged in the contest for freedom ; it 
will challenge the disturbed attention of despots ; and 
it will become a precedent whose importance will 
grow, in the thick-coming events of the future, with 
the growing might of the Republic. In this view, it 
becomes us to consider well what we do, and to un- 
derstand the grounds of our conduct. 

For myself, I am prepared to vote for it without 
amendment or condition of any kind, and on reasons 
which seem to me at once obvious and conclusive. In 
assigning these I shall be brief; and let me say that, 
novice as I am in this hall, and, indeed, in all legisla- 
tive halls, nothing but my strong interest in the ques- 
tion as now presented, and a hope to say something 
directly upon it, could prompt me thus early to mingle 
in these debates. 

The case seems to require a statement, rather than 
an argument. As I understand, the last Congress 
requested the President to authorize the employment 
of one of our public vessels to receive and convey 
Louis Kossuth to the United States. That honorable 
service was performed, under the express direction of 
the President, and in pursuance of the vote of Con- 
gress, by one of the best-appointed ships of our navy 
— the steam-frigate Mississippi. Far away from our 



8 WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 

country, in foreign waters, in the currents of the Bos- 
phorus, the Hungarian chief, passing from his Turkish 
exile, first pressed the deck of this gallant vessel ; first 
came under the protection of our national flag, and, 
for the first time in his life, rested beneath the ensign 
of an unquestioned Republic. From that moment he 
became our guest. The Republic — which, thus far, 
he had seen only in delighted dream or vision — was 
now his host ; and though this relation was inter- 
rupted for a few weeks by his wise and brilliant visit 
to England, yet its duties and its pleasures, as I con- 
fidently submit, are not yet ended. The liberated 
exile is now at our gates. Sir, we cannot do things 
by halves ; and the hospitality thus, under the auspices 
of Congress, begun, must, under the auspices of Con- 
gress, be continued. The hearts of the people are 
already open to receive him ; Congress cannot turn its 
back upon him. 

But I would join in this welcome, not merely be- 
cause it is essential to complete and crown the work 
of the last Congress, but because our guest deserves it 
at our hands. The distinction is great, I know ; but 
it is not so great as his deserts. He deserves it as 
the early, constant, and incorruptible champion of the 
Liberal Cause in Hungary, who, while yet young, Avith 
unconscious power, girded himself for the contest, and 
by a series of masterly labors, with voice and pen, in 
parliamentary debates, and in the discussions of the 
press, breathed into his country the breath of life. 
He deserves it by the great principles of true democ- 
racy which he caused to be recognized — representa- 
tion of the people without distinction of rank or birth, 
and equality before the law. He deserves it by the 



WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 9 

trials he has undergone, in prison and in exile. lie 
deserves it by the precious truth, M'hich he now so 
eloquently proclaims, of the Fraternity of Nations. 

As I regard his course, I am filled with reverence 
and awe. I see in him, more than in any other living 
man, the power which may be exerted by a single, 
earnest, honest soul, in a noble cause. In himself he 
is more than a whole cabinet — more than a whole 
army. I watch him in Hungary, while, like Carnot 
in France, he "organizes victory;" I follow him in 
exile to distant Asiatic Turkey, and there find him, 
with only a scanty band of attendants, in weakness 
and confinement, still the dread of despots ; I sympa- 
thize with him in his happy release ; and now, as he 
comes more within the sphere of our immediate obser- 
vation, amazement fills us all in the contemplation of 
his career, while he proceeds from land to land, from 
city to city, and, with words of matchless power, 
seems at times the fiery sword of freedom, and then 
the trumpet of resurrection to the nations — Tuha 
minim spargens sojium. 

I know not how others have been impressed ; but I 
can call to mind no incident in history — no event of 
peace or war — certainly none of war — more strongly 
calculated — better adapted — to touch and exalt the 
imagination and the heart than his recent visit to 
England. He landed on the southern coast, not far 
from where William of Normandy, nearly eight cen- 
turies ago, had landed ; not far from where, nineteen 
centuries ago, Julius Caesar had landed also ; but Wil- 
liam on the field of Hastings, and Ca?sar, in his adven- 
turous expedition, made no conquest comparable in 
grandeur to that achieved by the unarmed and unat- 



10 WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 

tended Hungarian. A miiltitudinous people, outnum- 
bering far tlie armies of those earlier times, was subdued 
by his wisdom and eloquence ; and this exile, — proceed- 
ing from place to place, — traversing the country, — 
at last, in the very heart of the Kingdom, threw down 
the gauntlet of the Republic. Without equivocation, 
amidst the supporters of monarchy, in the shadow of 
a lofty throne, he proclaimed himself a republican, and 
proclaimed the republic as his cherished aspiration for 
Hungary. And yet, amidst the excitements of this 
unparalleled scene, with that discretion which I pray 
may ever attend him, as a good angel — the ancient 
jDoet a^^tly tells us that no Divinity is absent where 
Prudence is present — he forbore all suggestion of 
interference with the existing institutions of the coun- 
try whose guest he was, recognizing that vital principle 
of self-government, by virtue of which every State 
chooses for itself the institutions and rulers which it 
prefers. 

Such a character, thus grandly historic — a living 
Wallace — a living Tell — I had almost said a liv- 
ing Washington — deserves our homage. Nor am I 
tempted to ask if there be any precedent for the reso- 
lution now under consideration. There is a time for 
all things ; and the time has come for us to make a 
precedent in harmony with his unprecedented career. 
The occasion is fit ; the hero is near ; let us speak our 
welcome. It is true that, unlike Lafayette, he has 
never directly served our country ; but I cannot admit 
that on this account he is less worthy. Like Lafay- 
ette, he perilled life and all ; like Lafayette, he has 
done penance in an Austrian dungeon ; like Lafayette, 
he has served the cause of freedom ; and whosoever 



WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 11 

serves this cause, wlicrcsocver he may be, in whatever 
land, is entitled, according to his works, to the grati- 
tude of every true American bosom — of every true 
lover of mankind. 

The resolution before us commends itself by its 
simplicity and completeness. In this respect, it seems 
to me preferable to that of the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Shields] ; nor is it obnoxious to objections 
urged against that of the Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Foote] ; nor do I see that it can give any just 
umbrage, in our diplomatic relations, even to the sen- 
sitive representative of the house of Austria. Though 
we have the high authority of the President, in his 
message, for styling our guest " Governor " — a title 
which seems to imply the de facto independence of 
Hungary at the very time when our Government 
declined to acknowledge it — the resolution avoids 
this difficulty, and speaks of him without title of any 
kind — simply as a private citizen. As such, it offers 
him a welcome to the capital and to the country. 

The comity of nations I respect. To the behests of 
the law of nations I profoundly bow. As in our do- 
mestic affairs, all acts are brought to the Constitution, 
as to a touchstone, so in our foreign afiairs, all acts 
are brought to the touchstone of the law of nations — 
that supreme law, the world's collected will, which 
overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian 
States. What that forbids, I forbear to do. But no 
text of this voluminous code, no commentary, no gloss, 
can be found M-hich forbids us to welcome any exile 
of freedom. 

Looking at this resolution in its various lights — as 
a carrying out of the act of the last Congress ; as justly 



12 WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 

clue to the exalted ciiaracter of our guest ; and as 
jii'oper in form and consistent with the law of nations 
— it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion in its 
favor. On its merits it would naturally be adopted. 
And here I might stop. 

But an appeal has been made against the resolution, 
on grounds which seem to me extraneous and irrele- 
vant. It has been attempted to involve it with the 
critical question of intervention by our country in 
European affairs ; and recent speeches in England and 
New York have been adduced to show that such in- 
tervention is sought by our guest. It is sufficient to 
say in reply to this suggestion, introduced by the 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Berrien] with a skill 
which all might envy — and also by the Senator from 
New Jersey [Mr. Miller] — that no such interven- 
tion is promised or imjjlied hy the resolution. It does 
not appear on the face of the resolution ; it is not in 
any way suggested by the resolution, directly or indi- 
rectly. It can only be found in the imagination, the 
anxieties, or the fears of Senators ! It is a mere 
ghost, and not a reality. As such we may dismiss it. 
But I feel strongly on this point, and desire to go 
further. Here, again, I shall be brief; for the occa- 
sion allows me to state conclusions only, and not 
arguments. 

While thus warmly — with my heart in my hand — 
joining in this tribute, I wish to be understood as in 
no respect encouraging any idea of belligerent interven- 
tion in European affairs. Such a system would have 
in it no elomont of just self-defence, and it would 
open phials of perplexities and ills which I trust our 
country will never be called to affront. But I incul- 



WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 13 

cate no frigid isolation. God forbid that wc should 
ever close our ears to the cry of distress, or cease to 
swell with indignation at the steps of tyranny ! In 
the wisdom of Washington we may find perpetual 
counsel. Like Washington, in his eloquent words to 
the Minister of the French Directory, I would offer 
sympathy and God-speed to all, in every land, who 
struggle for Human Rights ; but, sternly as Wash- 
ington on another occasion, against every pressure, 
against all popular appeals, against all solicitations, 
against all blandishments, I would uphold with steady 
hand the peaceful neutrality of the country. Could I 
now approach our mighty guest, I would say to him, 
with the respectful frankness of a friend, " Be content 
with the outgushing sympathy which you now so 
marvellously inspire everywhere throughout this wide- 
spread land, and may it strengthen your soul ! Trust 
in God, in the inspiration of your cause, and in the 
Great Future, pregnant with freedom for all mankind. 
But respect our ideas, as we respect yours. Do not 
seek to reverse our traditional, established policy of 
peace. Do not^ under the too plausible sophism of 
upholding non-intervention^ provoke American inter- 
vention on distant European soil. Leave us to tread 
where Washington points the way." 

And yet, with these convictions, Mr. President, 
which I now most sincerely express, I trust the Sena- 
tor from Georgia [Mr. Berrien] will pardon me 
when I say I cannot join in his proposed amendment ; 
and for this specific reason. It attaches to an act of 
courtesy and welcome a condition which, however just 
as an independent proposition, is most ungracious in 
such connection. It is out of place, and everything 



14 WELCOME TO KOSSUTH. 

out of place is, to a certain extent, offensive. If 
adopted, it would impair, if not destroy, tlie value of 
our act. A generous hospitality will not make terms 
or conditions with, a guest; and such hospitality, I 
trust, Congress will tender to Louis Kossuth. 



JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES AND POLICY OF 

ROADS. 

SPEECUES IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON TUE 
IO^VA RAILROAD BILL, 27Tn JAN., 17tH PEB., AND IGtU 

MARcn, 1852. 



In the Senate, January 27, 1852. The Senate having 
under consideration the special order, being the " bill grant- 
ing the right of way, and making a grant of land to the 
State of Iowa, in aid of the construction of certain railroads 
in said State," — 

Me. Sumner said : — 

This bill is important by itself, inasmuch as it prom- 
ises to secure the building of a railroad at large cost, 
for a long distance, through a country not thickly 
settled, in a remote corner of the laud. It is more 
important still as a precedent for a series of similar ap- 
propriations in other States. In this discussion, then, 
we have before us, at the same time, the special in- 
terests of the State of Iowa, traversed by this projected 
road, and also the great question of the administration 
of the public lands. 

I have no inclination to go into these matters at 
length, even if I were able ; but entertaining no doubt 
as to the requirements of policy and of justice in the 
present case, and in all like cases, seeing my way 
clearly before me by lights that cannot deceive, I hope 
in a few words to exhibit these requirements and to 

[15] 



16 ' JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

make tliis way manifest to others. And I am es- 
pecially moved to do so by the tone of remarks often 
heard out of the Senate, and sometimes even here, 
begrudging these appropriations, and charging the 
particular States for Avhich they are made with an 
undue absorption of the property of the Union. It is 
sometimes said — not in this body, I know — that 
"the West is stealing the public lands;" and the 
Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], who expresses 
himself with a frankness and a moderation of manner 
worthy of regard, in discussing this very measure, dis- 
tinctly said that " we are squandering away the public 
lands ; " and he complained that such appropriations 
were partial, " because very large amounts of land are 
distributed to those States in which they lie, while 
nothing is given to the old States." And the Senator 
from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood], taking up this 
strain, has dwelt at great length, and in every variety 
of expression, on the alleged partiality of the distribu- 
tion. 

Now, I know full w^ell that the States in which 
these lands lie need no defender like myself. But, as 
a Senator from one of the old States, I desire thus 
early to declare distinctly my dissent from these views, 
and the reasons for my dissent. Beyond a general con- 
cern, that the public lands, of which the Union is now 
the almoner, the custodian and proprietor, should be ad- 
ministered freely, generously, bountifully, in such wise 
as most to promote their settlement, and to build upon 
them towns, cities, and States, the nurseries of futurp 
empire — beyond this concern which leads me to 
adopt gladly the proposition, in favor of actual set- 
tlers, brought forward by the Senator from Wisconsin 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 17 

[Mr. Walker], I find a clear and special reason for 
supporting the measure now before the Senate, in an 
undeniable rule of justice to the States in which the 
lands lie. 

Let me speak, then, for justice to the land States. 
And in doing so I wish to present an important, and, 
as it seems to me, decisive consideration — which has 
not been adduced thus far in this debate, nor do I 
know that it has been presented in any prior discus- 
sion — founded on the exemption from taxation enjoyed 
hy the National lands in the several States^ and the 
unquestionable value of this franchise. The subject 
naturally presents itself under two heads : First, the 
origin and nature of this franchise ; and, secondly, its 
extent and value, after deducting therefrom all reser- 
vations and grants to the several States. 

I. And now, in the frst place, as to the origin and 
nature of the immunity enjoyed by the national domain 
in the several States. 

The United States are the proprietors of large tracts 
of country within the municipal and legislative juris- 
diction of States of the Union. These lands are not 
held directly by virtue of any original prerogative or 
eminent domain, by any right of conquest, occupancy, 
or discovery, but under acts of cession from the old 
States, in which the lands were situated, and from 
foreign countries, recognized and confirmed in the 
various statutes by which the different States have 
been constituted. The words determining this relation 
are found in the Ordinance of 1787. They are as 
follow: "The Legislati res of these districts or new 
States shall never interfere with the jirimary disposal 
of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, 
2* 



18 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary 
for securing the title in such soil to bona Jide pur- 
chasers." This provision has been incorporated, as an 
article of compact, in the subsequent statutes under 
which the new States have taken their place in the 
Union. It is the " primary disposal of the soil," 
without any incident of sovereignty, which is here 
secured. 

Regarding the United States, then, as simple pro- 
prietors of these lands, under the jurisdiction of the 
States, would they not be liable, in the discretion of 
the States, to the burdens of other proprietors, unless 
especially exempted therefrom ? This exemption has 
been conceded. In the ordinance of 1787, it is ex- 
pressly declared that " no tax shall be imposed on 
land the property of the United States ; " and this 
provision, like that already mentioned, is embodied in 
succeeding acts of Congress by which new States have 
been constituted. The fact that it was formally con- 
ceded and has been thus imbodied, seems to denote 
that such concession was regarded as necessary to 
secure the desired immunity. Indeed, from the prin- 
cr^iles recognized in our jurisprudence, and particularly 
by the Supreme Court, it is reasonable to infer that, 
without such express exemption, this whole amount 
of territory would be within the field of local taxation, 
liable, like the lands of other proprietors, to all cus- 
tomary burdens and incidents. 

Thus, in an early case in Pennsylvania, it was de- 
cided that the purchase of land by the United States 
M'ould not alone be sufficient to vest them with the 
jurisdiction, or to oust the jurisdiction of the State, 
without being accompanied or followed by the consent 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 19 

of tlie Legislature of the State. (Sec Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania v. Young. 1 Kent's Comm. 43 1.) 
And it has been judicially declared by the late Mr. 
Justice Woodbury, in a well-considered case : 

" Where the United States own land situated within the 
limits of any particular States, and over which they have 
no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or gen- 
eral, little doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation 
to it are usually such as apply to other landholders ifilhin 
the State.'' 

After setting forth certain rights of the United 
States, the learned judge proceeds : 

" All these rights exist in the United States for constitu- 
tional purposes, and without a special cession of jurisdiction ; 
though it is admitted that the powers over the property and 
persons on such lands will, of course, remain in the States 
till such cession is made. Nothing passes without such a 
cession, except what is an incident to the title and purposes 
of the General Government." — United States v. Ames, 1 
Woodbury & Minot, R. 76. 

The Supreme Court have given great eminence to 
the sovereign right of taxation in the States. They 
have said : 

" Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of 
Government — an incident of sovereignty. The right of 
legislation is co-extensive with the incident, to attach it 
upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of a 
State." — Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie Co., 17 Peters, 
R. 447. 

And again, the Court say in another case : 

*' However absolute the right of an individual may be, it 
is still in the nature of that right that it must bear a por- 



20 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES^ 

tion of the public iDurdens, and that portion must be de- 
termined by the Legislature." — Providence Bank v. Pitt- 
man, 4 Peters, R. 514. 

And in the same case the Court, after declaring 
*' that the taxing power is of vital importance ; that it 
is essential to the existence of Government ; that the 
relinquishment of such a power is never to be as- 
sumed," add, cautiously, that they will not say " that 
a State may not relinquish it — that a consideration 
sitjjiciently valuable to induce a partial release of it 
may not exist. '^ 

While thus upholding the right of taxation as one 
of the precious attributes of sovereignty in the States, 
the Court, under the Constitution of the United States, 
have properly exempted from taxation the instruments 
and means of the Government ; but they have limited 
the exemption to these instruments and means. Thus 
it has been expressly decided in a celebrated case, 
{McCulloch V. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316,) that, while 
the Bank of the United States, being one of the neces- 
sary instruments and means to execute the sovereign 
powers of the nation, was not liable to taxation, yet 
the real property of the Bank was thus liable in com- 
mon with the other real property in a particular State. 

Now, the lands held by the United States do not 
belong to the instruments and means necessary and 
proper to execute the sovereign powers of the nation. 
In this respect they clearly differ from fortifications, 
arsenals, and navy yards. They are strictly in the 
nature of private property of the nation, situated 
within the jurisdiction of States. In excusing them 
from taxation, our fathers acted unquestionably ac- 
cording to the suggestions of prudence, but also under 



AND rOLTCY OF ROADS. 21 

the influence of precedent, derived at that time from 
the prerogatives of the British Crown. It was an 
early prerogative, transmitted from feudal days, when 
all taxes were in the nature of aids and subsidies to 
the monarch, that the property of the Crown, of every 
nature, should be exempt from taxation. But mark 
the change. This ancient feudal principle is not now 
the existing law of England. By the statute of 39 
and 40 George III, cap. 38, passed twelve years after 
the Ordinance of 1787, the lands and tenements pur- 
chased by the Crown out of the privy purse or other 
moneys not appropriated to any public service, or 
which came to the King from his ancestors or private 
persons — in other words, lands and tenements in the 
nature of private property — are subjected to taxation, 
even while they belong to the Crown. 

Thus the matter now stands. Lands belonging to 
the nation, which, it seems, even royal prerogative at 
this day, in England, cannot save from taxation, are 
in our country, under express provisions of compact, 
early established, exempted from this burden. Now, 
sir, I make no complaint of this ; I do not suggest 
any change ; nor do I hint any ground of legal title 
in the States. But I do confidently submit that in this 
peculiar, time-honored immunity, originally claimed 
by the nation, and conceded by the States within 
which the public lands lie, there is ample ground of 
equity, under which these States may now appeal to 
the nation for assistance out of these public lands. 

When I listen to comparisons discrediting these 
States by the side of the old States ; when I hear it 
charged that they have been constant recipients of the 
national bounty ; and when I catch those sharper 



22 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

terms of condemnation, by which they are character- 
ized as "plunderers" and "robbers" and "pirates," 
I am forced to inquire whether the nation has not 
already received from these States something more 
than it has ever bestowed, even in its most liberal 
moods ; whether, at this moment, the nation is not 
equitably the debtor to these States, and not these 
States the debtors to the nation. The answer is clear. 

In order to estimate the importance of this equity 
— for I will call it by no stronger term — we must 
endeavor to understand the extent and value of the 
franchise or immunity conceded by the States. 

II. And I am now brought to the second head of 
this inquiry ; that is, the extent and value of the im- 
munity from taxation enjoyed by the national domain, 
after deducting therefrom all reservations and grants 
to the several States. Authentic documents and facts 
place these beyond question. 

From the official returns of the Land Office in Jan- 
uary, 1849, [Exec. Doc. 2d session, 30th Cong., H. 
11 . No. 12, p. 225,] it appears that the areas of the 
twelve Land States — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, 
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Michigan, Arkansas, 
Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida — embrace 392,579,200 
acres. California was not at that time a State of the 
Union. Of this territory, only 289,961,954 acres had 
been, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, 
surveyed, proclaimed, and put into the market. In 
some of the recent States, more than a moiety of the 
whole domain had never been brought into this con- 
dition. It continued, at the date of these official 
returns, still unconscious of the surveyor's chain. 
Thus, in Wisconsin, out of a territory of more than 



AND rOLICV OF KOADS. 2.'5 

tliirty-four millions of acres, only a little more than 
thirteen millions had been proclaimed for sale ; and in 
Iowa, the very State whose interests are now particu- 
larly in question, out of a territory of more than 
thirty-two millions of acres, only a little more than 
twelve millions had been proclaimed for sale. It is 
evident, therefore, that, in point of fact, the true ex- 
tent of territory, belonging to the United States at 
any time, much exceeds the extent actually in the 
market ; but since it may be said, that the lands not 
yet surveyed, proclaimed, and put into the market, 
though nominally under the jurisdiction of the State, 
must actually lie out of the sphere of their influence, 
80 as not to derive any appreciable advantage from 
the local Governments, and, as I desire to hold this 
argument above every imputation of exaggeration — 
knowing full well that it can afford to be under-stated 
— I shall forbear to take the larger sum as the basis 
of my estimates, but shall found them upon the extent 
of territory actually proclaimed for sale, from the 
beginning down to January, 1849, amounting to 
289,961,954 acres. 

All these lands thus proclaimed have been exempt 
from taxation. But since they were proclaimed at 
different periods, and also sold at different periods, so 
far as the same have been sold, it is necessary, in 
order to arrive at the value of this immunity, to as- 
certain what is the average period during which the 
lands, after being put into the market, have been in 
the possession of the United States. This we are able 
to do from the official returns of the Land Office. 
Here is a table, now before me, from which it appears 
that of the lands offered for sale during a period of 



«3^ 
24 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

thirty years, large quantities — in some cases more than 
half — were, at the expiration of the period, still on 
hand. Of the fourteen millions offered in Ohio during 
this period, more than two millions remained ; while, 
of the nineteen millions offered in Missouri, more than 
twelve millions remained. Of all the lands offered 
during this period of thirty years, more than half were 
still unsold. And out of the above aggregate of all 
the lands proclaimed from the beginning down to 
January, 1849, notwithstanding the advancing tread 
of our thick-coming population, only 100,209,656 
acres had been sold. Now, without further pursuing 
these details, I shall assume what cannot be ques- 
tioned, as it is most clearly within the truth, that the 
lands proclaimed are not all sold till after a period of 
fifty years. This estimate will make the average 
period during which the lands, after being surveyed 
and proclaimed, are actually in the possession of the 
United States, and free from taxation, twenty-five 
years. 

According to this estimate, 289,961,954 acres pro- 
claimed for sale, have been absolutely free from taxa- 
tion, during the space of twenty-five years, and yet 
during this whole period have, without the ordinary 
consideration therefor, enjoyed the protection of the 
State, with the advantages and increased value from 
highways, bridges and school-houses, all of which are 
supported by the adjoining proprietors, under the laws 
of the State, without assistance of any kind from the 
United States. 

Such is the extent of this immunity. But, in order 
to determine its precise value, it is necessary to ad- 
vance a step further and ascertain one other clement ; 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 25 

that is, the average annual tax on land in these States ; 
for instance, on the land of other non-residents. There 
are no official documents within my knowledge by 
which this can be determined. But after inquiry of 
gentlemen, themselves landholders in these States, I 
have thought it might be placed, without chance of 
contradiction, at one cent an acre. Probably it is 
rather two or even three cents ; but, desiring to keep 
within bounds, I call it merely one cent an acre. The 
annual tax on 289,761,954 acres, at the rate of one 
cent an acre, would be $2,809,619, and the sum total 
of this tax for twenty-five years would amount to 
$72,490,475, being the apparent value of this immu- 
nity from taxation already enjoyed by the United 
States ; or, if we call the annual tax two cents an acre 
instead of one cent, we have the enormous sum of 
8144,980,950, of which the United States may now 
be regarded as trustees in equity for the benefit of the 
Land States. 

But against this large sum I may be reminded of 
reservations and grants by the nation to the difi'erent 
States in question. These, however, when examined, 
do not materially interfere with the result. From the 
official returns of the Land Office in 1848, [Executive 
Doc, Thirtieth Congress, second session, H. R. No. 
18,] we learn the precise extent of these reservations 
and grants down to that period. Here is the exhibit : 

Acres. 

Common schools 10,807,958 

Universities ' . 823,050 

Seats of Government .... 50,800 

Salines 422,32 5 

Amount carried forward, 12,105,093 
3 



26 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

Amount brought forward, 12,105,093 

Deaf and dumb asylums . . . • 45,440 

Internal < By act Sept. 4, 1841, . 4,169,439 

improvements < Roads, rivers, and canals . 4,305,034 

20,625,006^ 

Tbis is all. In the whole aggregate, only a little 
more than twenty millions of acres have been granted 
to these States. The value of this sum total, if de- 
ducted from the estimated value of the franchise 
enjoyed by the nation, will still leave a very large 
balance to the credit of the Land States. Estimating 
the land at $1.25 an acre, all the reservations and 
grants will amount to no more than $25,788,257. 
Deducting this sum from $72,490,475, and we have 
$46,702,218 to be entered to the credit of the Land 
States ; or, if we place the tax at two cents an acre, 
more than double this sum. 

This result leaves the nation so largely in debt to 
the Land States, that it becomes of small importance 
to scan closely the character of these grants and reser- 
vations, in order to determine whether in large part 
they have not been already satisfied by specific con- 
siderations on the part of the States. But the stress 
that, in the course of this debate, has been laid upon 
this bounty, leads me to go further. It appears, from 
an examination of the acts of Congress by which the 
Land States were admitted into the Union, that a large 
portion of these reservations and grants was made on 
the express condition that the lands sold by the 
United States, under the jurisdiction of the States, 
should remain exempt from any State tax for the space 
of Jive years after the sale. This condition is particu- 
larly applicable to the appropriations for common 



riy 



^ 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 27 

scliools, universities, seats of Government, and salines, 
amounting to 12,105,093 acres. It is also particularly 
applicable to another item, not mentioned before, 
which, is known as the five per cent, fund, from the 
proceeds of the public lands, for the benefit of roads 
and canals, amounting in the M'hole to $5,242,069. 
These appropriations being made on specific considera- 
tions, faithfully performed by the States down to this 
day, may properly be excluded from our calculations. 
And this is a response to the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. Underwood], who dwelt so energetically on 
these appropriations, without seeming to be aware of 
the conditions on which they were granted. • 

That I may make this more intelligible, let me refer 
to the act for the admission of Indiana. After setting 
forth the five reservations and grants already men- 
tioned, it proceeds : 

^^ And provided, a/wai/s , Thsit the five foregoing provis- 
ions herein offered are on the condition that the convention 
of the said State shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable 
without the consent of the United States, that every and 
each tract of land sold by the Cnited States, from and after 
the 1st day of December next, shall be, and remain, exempt 
from any tax laid by order of any authority of the State, 
whether for State, county, or township, or any other pur- 
pose whatever, for the term of five years from and after the 
day of sale." 

This clause does not stand by itself in the acts ad- 
mitting the more recent States, but is mixed with 
other conditions. I will not believe, however, that 
any discrimination can be made between particular 
Land States, on the ground of a difference in their 
conditions which may properly be attributed to acci- 
dental circumstances. The provision just quoted is 



28 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

found substantially in the acts for the admission of 
Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Arkansas. So far as 
these States are concerned, it is a complete considera- 
tion, in the nature of satisfaction, for the reservations 
and grants enjoyed by them. It also helps to illus- 
trate the value of the 'permanent immunity from taxa- 
tion belonging to the United States, by exhibiting the 
concessions made by the United States to assure this 
franchise to certain moderate quantities of land during 
the brief space of five years only. 

After the constant charges of squandering the public 
lands and of partiality to the Land States, I think all 
will be astonished at the small amount to be entered 
on the debtor side, in the great account between the 
States and the National Government. This consists 
of grants for internal improvements, in the whole 
reaching to only 8,474,473 acres, which, at $1.25 an 
acre, will be $10,593,091. If this sum be deducted 
from the estimated value of the immunity from taxation 
already enjoyed by the United States, we shall still 
have upwards q/" $60,000,000 surrendered by the Land 
States to the nation ; or, if we call the annual tax two 
cents an acre, more than double this sum. 

In these estimates I have grouped together all the 
Land States. But, taking separate States, we shall 
find the same proportionate result. For instance, 
there is Ohio, with 16,770,984 acres proclaimed for 
sale down to January 1, 1849. Adopting the basis 
already employed, and assuming that these lands con- 
tinued in the possession of the United States after 
being surveyed and proclaimed an average period of 
twenty-five years, and that the land tax was one cent 
an acre, wc have $4,192,725 as the value of the im- 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 29 

miinity from taxation already enjoyed by the United 
States in Ohio. From this may be deducted the value 
of 1,181,134 acres, being grants to this State for 
internal improvements, at $1.25 per acre, equal to 
$1,476,367, leaving upwards of two millions — nearly 
three millions — of dollars yielded by this State to the 
nation. 

Take another State — Missouri. It appears that, 
down to January, 1849, 39,685,609 acres had been 
proclaimed for sale in this State. Assuming again 
th^ basis already employed, and we have $9,908,900 
as the value of the immunity from taxation already 
enjoyed by the United States in Missouri. From this 
may be deducted the value of 500,000 acres, granted 
to this State for internal improvements, which, at 
$1.25 an acre, will amount to $625,000, leaving up- 
wards of nine millions of dollars thus yielded by this 
State to the nation. 

I might in this w^ay proceed with all the Land States 
individually ; but enough has been done to repel the 
charges against them, and to elucidate their 'peculiar 
equity in the premises. On the one side, they have 
received little — very little — from the nation ; while, 
on the other side, the nation, by strong considerations 
of equity, is largely indebted to them. This obliga- 
tion of itself constitutes an equitable fund to which 
the Land States may properly resort for assistance in 
their works of internal improvement, and Congress 
will show an indifference to the reasonable demands 
of these States, should it fail to deal with them 
munificently — in some sort, according to the simple 
measure of advantage which the nation has already so 
largely enjoyed at their hands. 
3* 



30 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

Against these clear and well-supported merits of 
the Land States, the old States can present small 
claims to consideration. They have waived no right 
of taxation over lands within their acknowledged 
jurisdiction; they have made no valuable concessions; 
they have yielded up no costly franchise. It remains, 
then, that, with candor and justice, they should recog- 
nize the superior — I will not say exclusive — claims 
of the States within whose borders and under the 
protection of whose laws the national domain is 
found, t^ ^ 

Thus much for what I have to say in favor of this 
bill, on the ground of justice to the States in which 
the lands lie. If this argument did not seem suffi- 
ciently conclusive to render any further discussion 
superfluous, at least from me, I might go forward, 
and show that the true interests of the whole country 
— of every State in the Union, as of Iowa itself — are 
happily coincident with this claim of justice. 
. It will readily occur to all, that the whole country 
will gain by the increased value of the lands still 
retained and benefited by the proposed road. But 
this advantage, though not unimportant, is trivial by 
the side of the grander gains — commercially, politi- 
cally, socially and morally — which will necessarily 
accrue from the opening of a new communication, by 
which the territory beyond the Mississippi will be 
brought into connection with the Atlantic seaboard, 
and by which the distant post of Council Blufls will 
become a suburb of Washington. It would be diffi- 
cult to exaggerate the influence of roads as means of 
civilization. This, at least, may be said : Where roads 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 31 

are not, civilization cannot be ; and civilization ad- 
vances as roads are extended. By roads, religion and 
knowledge are diffused ; intercourse of all kinds is 
promoted ; the producer, the manufacturer, and the 
consumer, are all brought nearer together ; commerce 
is quickened ; markets are opened ; property, wherever 
touched by these lines, is changed, as by a magic rod, 
into new values ; and the great current of travel, like 
that stream of classic fable, or one of the rivers of our 
own California, hurries in a channel of golden sand. 
The roads, together with the laws, of ancient Rome, 
are now better remembered than her victories. The 
Flaminian and Appian Ways — once trod by returning 
proconsuls and tributary kings — still remain as bene- 
ficent representatives of her departed grandeur. Under 
God, the road and the schoolmaster are the two chief 
agents of human improvement. The education begun 
by the schoolmaster is expanded, liberalized, and com- 
pleted, by intercourse with the world ; and this inter- 
course finds new opportunities and inducements in 
every road that is built. 

Our country has already done much in this regard. 
Through a remarkable line of steam communications, 
chiefly by railroad, its whole population is now, or 
will be soon, brought close to the borders of Iowa. 
The cities of the Southern seaboard — Charleston, 
Savannah, and Mobile — are already stretching their 
lines in this direction, soon to be completed conduc- 
tors ; while the traveller from all the principal points 
of the Northern seaboard — from Portland, Boston, 
Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and 
Washington — now passes without impediment to this 
remote region, traversing a territory of unexampled 



32 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

resources — at once a magazine and a granary — the 
largest coal-field, and at the same time the largest 
corn-field, of the known globe — winding his way 
among churches and school-houses, among forests and 
gardens, by villages, towns, and cities, along the sea, 
along rivers and lakes, with a speed which may recall 
the gallop of the ghostly horseman in the ballad : 

" Fled past on right and left how fast 
Each forest, grove, and bower ! 
On right and left fled past how fast 
Each city, town, and tower ! 

*' Tramp ! tramp ! along the land they speed. 
Splash ! splash ! along the sea." 

On the banks of the Mississippi he is now arrested. 
The proposed road in Iowa will bear the adventurer 
yet further, to the banks of the Missouri ; and this 
distant giant stream, mightiest of the earth, leaping 
from its sources in the Rocky Mountains, will be 
clasped with the Atlantic in the same iron bracelet. 
In all this I see not only further opportunities for 
commerce, but a new extension to civilization and 
increased strength to our National Union. 

A heathen poet, while picturing the golden age, 
has perversely indicated the absence of long lines of 
road as creditable to that imaginary period in contrast 
with his own. " How well," exclaimed the youthful 
Tibullus,* " they lived while Saturn ruled — hefore 
the earth was opened by long ways : " 

*♦ Quam bene Saturno vivebant rege, priusquam 
Tellus in longas est patef acta vias.^' 

* Opera, Lib. i. Eleg. 3, v. 35. 



AND rOLICY OF ROADS. 38 

But the true Golden Age is before us, not bcliind us ; 
and one of its tokens will be the completion of tbose 
long ways, by whicb. villages, towns, counties, States, 
provinces, nations, are all to be associated and knit 
together in a fellowship that can never be broken. 



The debate on the Iowa Railroad Bill was continued on 
successive days down to 17th February, when the speech uf 
Mr. Sumner was particularly assailed by Mr. Hunter, of 
Virginia. To this he replied at once : 

Mr. Sumxer. One word, if you please, Mr. Presi- 
dent. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], who 
has just taken his seat, has very kindly given me 
notice that I am to expect a broadside from the Sen- 
ator from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood]. For this in- 
formation I am properly grateful. When, a few days 
ago, I undertook to discuss an important question in 
this body, I expressed certain views, deemed by mc of 
weight. Those views I submitted to the candor and 
to the judgment of the Senate. I felt confidence in 
their essential justice, and nothing which I have heard 
since has impaired that confidence. I have listened 
with respect and attention to the address to-day from 
the Senator from Virginia, as it becomes me to listen 
to everything any Senator undertakes to put forth 
here. But I hope to be excused if I say, that in 
all that he has so eloquently uttered with reference 
to myself, he has not touched by a hair-breadth my 
argument. He has criticized — I am unwilling to say 
that he has cavilled at — my calculations ; but he has 
not, by the ninth part of a hair, touched the conclu- 



34 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

sion wliich I drew. That still stands. And let me 
say, that it cannot be successfully assailed in the way 
attempted by him. 

I said that injustice had been done to the Land 
States, out of this body and in this body, — out of this 
body, because I often heard them called " land steal- 
ers " and " land pirates ; " in this body, by the Sen- 
ator from Virginia, when he complained of the partial 
distribution of the public lands, and particularly pointed 
out the bill now before the Senate as an instance of 
this partiality. I said that this charge was without 
foundation. And why did I say so ? and on what 
ground ? Because there was an existing equity (I so 
called it — nothing more) on the part of the Land 
States as against the General Government. And on 
what was this founded ? On a fact of record in the pub- 
lic acts of this country. That is, the exemption of the 
public domain from taxation by the States in which it 
is situated. The Senator from Virginia has not ques- 
tioned this fact ; of course he could not question it, 
for it is imbodied in the acts of Congress. 

The next inquiry, then, was, as to the value of 
this immunity from taxation, which I called an equity 
on the part of the Land States. In order to illustrate 
this value, I went into calculations and estimates, 
which I presented, after some study of the subject — 
not, perhaps, such study as the Senator from Virginia 
has found time to give to it, or such as the Senator 
from Kentucky, in the plenitude of his researches, 
doubtless has given to it. On those calculations and 
estimates I attributed a certain value to the equity in 
question. My calculations and estimates may be over- 
stated ; they may be exaggerated. The Senator from 



A.ND POLICY OF ROADS. S5 

Virginia thinks them so. Other gentlemen with whom 
I have had the privilege of conversing, think them 
understated. But however this may be, it does not 
touch the argument. I may have done injustice to 
my argument by overstating them, I intended to 
understate them. I still think from all that I 
hear, that I have understated them. But, whether 
understated or overstated, the argument still stands, 
that these States have conceded to the General Gov- 
ernment an immunity from taxation ; that this im- 
munity has a certain value — I think a very large 
value — and that this value constitutes an equity to 
which the Land States have a right to appeal for boun- 
tiful, ay, for munificent treatment from the General 
Government. Has the Senator from Virginia answered 
this argument ? Can he answer it ? 

But I forbear to go into the subject at this time. 
I arose simply to state, that as the Senator from Vir- 
ginia had kindly given me notice that I am to expect 
a broadside from the Senator from Kentucky, I am to 
regard what he said to-day, so far as I am concerned, 
simply as a signal gun. The Senator will pardon me 
if I say it is nothing more, for it has not reached me, 
or my argument. Meanwhile I await, with resignation 
and without anxiety, the broadside from Kentucky. 



The debate was continued for many days, during which 
the speech of Mr, Sumner was attacked and defended. 
Finally, on the 16th March, immediately before the question 
was taken, he again returned to the subject : 

Mr. SuMXER. Much time has been consumed by 
this question. At several periods the debate has 



36 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

seemed about to stop, and then again it has taken a new 
spring, while the goal has constantly receded. I know 
not if it is now near the end. But I hope that I shall 
not seem to interfere with its natural course, or un- 
duly occupy the time of the Senate, if I venture again 
for one moment to take part in it. 

The argrument which I submitted on a former oc- 
casion has not passed unregarded. And since it can 
owe little to my individual position, I accept the oppo- 
sition it has encountered as a tribute to its intrinsic 
importance. It has been assailed by different Senators, 
on different days, and in different ways. It has been 
met by harmless pleasantry, and by equally harmless 
vituperation ; by figures of rhetoric and figures of 
arithmetic ; by minute criticism and extended discus- 
sion ; also, by that sure resource of a weak cause, hard 
words and an imputation of personal motives. I do 
now propose to reply to all this array, least of all shall 
I retort the hard words or repel the personal imputa- 
tions. On this head I content myself now with saying 
— and confidently, too, — that, had he known me 
better, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood], 
who is usually so moderate and careful, would have 
hesitated long before uttering expressions which fell 
from him in this debate. 

The position I took was regarded as natural, or ex- 
cusable in a Senator from one of the Land States, act- 
ing under the vulgar spur of local interest ; but it was 
pronounced unnatural and inexcusable in a Senator 
from Massachusetts. Now, sir, it is sufficient for me 
to say, in reply to this suggestion, that, while I know 
there are influences and biases incident to particular 
States or sections of the Union, I recognize no differ- 



AND POLICY OF EOADS. S7 

ence in the duties of Senators on this floor. Comin<T 
from different States and opposite sections, we are all 
Senators of the Union ; and our constant duty is, with- 
out fear or favor, to introduce into the national le^is- 
lation the principle of justice. In this spirit, while 
sustaining the bill now before the Senate, I spoke for 
justice to the Land States. 

In sustaining this bill, I but followed the example 
of the Senators and Representatives of Massachusetts 
on kindred measures from their earliest introduction 
down to the present time. The first instance was in 
1823, on the grant to the State of Ohio of land one 
hundred and twenty-five feet wide, with one mile on 
each side, for the construction of a road from the lower 
rapids of the Miami River to the western boundary of 
the Connecticut Reserve. On the final passage of this 
grant in the House, the Massachusetts delegation voted 
as follows : Yeas — Samuel C. Allen, Henry W. 
Dwight, Timothy Fuller, Jeremiah Nelson, John Reed, 
Jonathan Russell. Nay — Benjamin Gorham. In 
the Senate, the bill passed without a division. In 
1828, a still greater unanimity occurred on the passage 
of the bill to aid the State of Ohio in extending the 
Miami canal from Dayton to Lake Erie ; and this bill 
is the first instance of the grant of alternate sections, 
as in that now before the Senate. On this the Massa- 
chusetts delegation in the House voted as follows : 
Yeas — Isaac C. Bates, Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 
John Davis, Edward Everett, John Locke, John Reed, 
Joseph Richardson, John Varnum. Nays — none. In 
the Senate, Messrs. Silsbee and Webster both voted 
in the affirmative. I pass over the intermediate grants 
which, I am told, have been sustained by the Massa- 
4 



38 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

chusetts delegations with substantial unanimity. The 
extensive grants at the last session of Congress to Illi- 
nois, Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of a railroad 
from Chicago to Mobile, were sustained by all the 
Massachusetts votes in the House, except one. 

Still further, in sustaining the present bill on grounds 
of justice to the Land States, I but followed the re- 
corded instructions of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
addressed to its Senators and Representatives here on 
a former occasion. The subject was presented in a 
special message to the Legislature in 1841, by the 
distinguished Governor at that time, who strongly 
urged " a liberal policy towards the actual settler, and 
towards the new States, for this is justly due to both." 
And he added : " Such States are entitled to a more 
liberal share of the proceeds of the public lands than 
the old States, as we owe to their enterprise much of 
the value this property has acquired. It seems to me, 
therefore, that justice towards the States in which these 
lands lie, demands a liberal and generous policy to- 
wards them.'''' In accordance with this recommenda- 
tion, it was resolved by the Legislature, " That, in the 
disposition of the public lands, this Commonwealth 
approves of making liberal provisions in favor of the 
new States ; and that she ever has been, and still 
is ready to co-operate with other portions of the 
Union in securing to those States such provisions." 
Thus a generous policy towards the Land States, with 
liberal provisions in their favor, was considered by 
Massachusetts the part of justice. 

It was my purpose, before this debate closed, to 
consider again the argument I formerly submitted, and 
to vindicate its accuracy in all respects, both in prin- 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. S9 

ciple and in detail. But this has already been so 
amply done by others so much abler than myself — by 
the Senator from Missouri [Mr, Geyer], both the Sen- 
ators from Michigan [Mr. Fclch and Mr. Cass], the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Borland], the Senator 
from Iowa [Mr. Dodge], and the Senator from Loui- 
siana [Mr. Downs], — all of whom, with different 
degrees of fulness, have urged the same grounds in 
favor of this bill, that I feel unwilling at this hour, and 
while the Senate actually waits to vote on the ques- 
tion, to occupy time by further dwelling upon it. 
Perhaps on some other occasion I may think proper to 
return to it. 

But, while avoiding what seems superfluous discus- 
sion, I cannot forbear to ask your attention to the 
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Under- 
wood]. 

This amendment, when addressed to the Senators 
of the favored States, is of a most plausible character. 
It proposes to give to the original thirteen States, to- 
gether with Vermont, Maine, Tennessee, and Kentucky, 
for purposes of education and internal improvement, 
portions of the public domain, at the rate of one acre 
to each inhabitant according to the recent census. 
This is commended by the declared object — education 
and internal improvement. Still further, in its dis- 
crimination of the old States, it assumes a guise well 
calculated to tempt them into its support. It holds out 
the attraction of seeming, though unsubstantial, self- 
interest. It offers a lure, a bait to be unjust. I 
object to it on several grounds. 

1. But I put it in the fore-front, as my first objec- 
tion, its clear, indubitable, and radical injustice, written 



40 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

on its very face. The amendment confines its dona- 
tions to the old States, and, in so doing, makes an 
inequitable discrimination in their favor. It tacitly 
assumes that, by the bill in question, or in some other 
way, the Land States have received their proper dis- 
tributive portion, so as to lose all title to share with 
the old States in the proposed distribution. But if 
there be any force in the argument, so much considered 
in this debate, that these railroad grants actually 
enhance the neighboring lands of the United States, 
and constitute a proper mode of bringing them into 
the market, or if there be any force in the other argu- 
ment which I have presented, drawn from the equita- 
ble claims of the Land States, in comparison with the 
other States, to the bounty of the great untaxed pro- 
prietor,^ then this assumption is unfounded. There is 
no basis for the discrimination made by the amend- 
ment. If the Iowa land bill be proper to be passed 
without this amendment, as I submit it is, then this 
amendment, introducing a new discrimination, is im- 
proper to be added to it. Nor do I well see how any 
one, prepared to sustain the original bill, can sustain 
this amendment. The Senator from Kentucky, who 
leads us to expect his vote for the bill, seems to con- 
fess the injustice of his attempted addition. 

2. I object to it as out of place. The amendment 
proposes to ingraft upon a special railroad grant to a 

* Mr. Webster in his greatest speech, the celebrated reply to 
Mr. Hayne, touched on this consideration. He said : " And, 
finally, have not these new States singularly strong claims, 
founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a 
great untaxed proprietor in the ownership of the soil?" — 
Webster's Speeches, Vol. III. p. 291. 



AND rOLICY OF ROADS. 41 

single State a novel system of distribution of the 
national domain. Now, there is a place and a time for 
all things ; and nothing seems to me more important in 
legislation than to keep all things in their proper place, 
and to treat them at their proper time. The distribu- 
tion of the public lands, is worthy of attention ; and I 
am ready to meet this great question whenever it 
arises legitimately for our consideration; but I object 
to considering it merely as a rider to the Iowa land 
bill. 

The amendment would be less objectionable, if pro- 
posed as a rider to a general system of railroad grants, 
as, for instance to a bill embracing grants to all the 
Land States ; but it is specially objectionable as a 
graft upon a single bill. The Senator who introduced 
it doubtless assumed that other bills, already intro- 
duced, would pass ; but, if his amendment be founded 
on this assumption, it should await the action of Con- 
gress on all these bills. 

3. If adopted, the amendment would endanger, if it 
did not occasion the defeat of, the Iowa land bill. 
This seems certain. Having this measure at heart, 
believing it founded in essential justice, I am unwill- 
ing to place it in this jeopardy. 

4. It prepares the way for States of this Union to 
become landholders in other States, subject, of course, 
to the legislation of those States — an expedient which> 
though not strictly objectionable on grounds of law, or 
under the Constitution, is not agreeable to our national 
policy. It should not be promoted without strong and 
special reasons therefor. In the bill introduced by the 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Shields], bestowing lands 
for the benefit of the insane in different States, this 

4* 



42 JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES 

objection has been partially obviated, by providing 
that the States in which there were no public lands 
should select their portion in the Territories of the 
United States, and not in other States. But, since in 
a short time these very Territories may become States, 
this objection is rather adjourned than entirely re- 
moved. 

5. But the lands held under this amendment, though 
in the hands of States, will be liable to taxation, as the 
lands of other non-resident proprietors, and on this ac- 
count will be comparatively valueless. For this reason, I 
said that the amendment held out the attraction of seem- 
ing, though unsubstantial, self-interest. That the lands 
will be liable to taxation, cannot be doubted. The 
amendment does not propose in any way to relieve 
them from this burden ; nor am I aware that they can 
be relieved from it. The existing immunity is only so 
long as they belong to the United States. Now, there 
is reason to believe that, from lack of agencies and 
other means familiar to the United States, the lands dis- 
tributed by this amendment would not find as prompt 
a market as those still in the hands of the Great Land- 
holder. But howsoever this may be, it is entirely 
clear, from the recorded experience of the national 
domain, that these lands, if sold at the minimum price 
of the public lands, and only as rapidly as those of the 
United States, and if meanwhile they are subject to 
the same burdens as the lands of other non-residents, 
will, before the sales are closed, be eaten up by the 
taxes. The taxes will amount to more than the entire 
receipts from the sales of the lands ; and thus the 
grant, while unjust to the Land States, will be worth- 
less to the old States, the pretended beneficiaries. In 



AND POLICY OF ROADS. 43 

the Roman law, an insolvent inheritance was known 
by an expressive phrase as damnosa heredilas. A 
grant under this amendment would be damnosa do- 
natio. 

For such good and sufficient reasons, I am opposed 
to this amendment. 



CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON HIS RESO- 
LUTION IN RELATION TO CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE, 8tII MARCH, 
1852. 

[This proposition Mr. Sumner has renewed at each session of 
Congress.] 



Mr. Sumner. I submit the following resolution. 
As it is one of inquiry, merely, I ask that it may be 
considered at this time : 

Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs, while 
considering the nature and extent of aid proper to be 
granted to the Ocean Steamers, be directed to inquire 
whether the present charges for letters carried by these 
steamers are not unnecessarily large and burdensome to 
foreign correspondence, and whether something may not be 
done, and, if so, what, to secure the great boon of Cheap 
Ocean Postage. 

There being no objection, the question was stated to be 
on the adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. Sumner. The Committee on Naval Affairs have 
the responsibility of shaping some measure by which 
the relations of our Government with the ocean steam- 
ers will be defined. And since one special inducement 
to these relations, involving the bounty now enjoyed 

[14] 



CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. 45 

and furtlier solicited, is tlie carrying of the mails, I 
trust this Committee Mill be willing to inquire whether 
there cannot be a reduction on the postage of forei"-n 
correspondence. Under the postage act of 1851, the 
postmaster, by and with the advice of the President, 
has power to reduce, from time to time, the rates of 
postage on all mailable matter conveyed between the 
United States and any foreign country. But the ex- 
istence of this power in the postmaster will not render 
it improper for the Committee, now drawn into con- 
nection with this question, to take it into careful 
consideration, with a view to some practical action, or, 
at least, recommendation thereon. The subject is of 
peculiar interest ; nor do I know any measure so 
easily accomplished, which promises to be so benefi- 
cent as cheap ocean postage. The argument in its 
favor seems to me at once brief and unanswerable. 

A letter can be sent three thousand miles in the 
United States for three cents, and the reasons for 
cheap postage on the land are equally applicable to 
the ocean. 

In point of fact, the conveyance of letters can be 
effected in sailing or steam packets at less cost than 
by railway. 

Besides, cheap ocean postage -will tend to supersede 
the clandestine or illicit conveyance of letters, and to 
bring into the mails all mailable matter, which, under 
the present system, is carried in the pockets of passen- 
gers, or in the bales and boxes of merchants. 

All new facilities for correspondence naturally give 
new expansion to human intercourse ; and there is 
reason to believe that, through an increased number 
of letters, cheap ocean postage will be self-supporting. 



46 CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. 

Cheap postal communication with foreign countries 
will be of incalculable importance to the commerce of 
the United States. 

By promoting the intercourse of families and friends, 
separated by the ocean, cheap postage will add to the 
sum of human happiness. 

The present high rates of ocean postage — namely, 
twenty-four cents on half an ounce, forty-eight cents 
on an ounce, and ninety-six cents on a letter which 
weighs a fraction more than an ounce — are a severe 
tax upon all, particularly upon the poor, amounting, in 
many cases, to a complete prohibition of foreign corres- 
pondence. This should not be so. 

It particularly becomes our country, by the removal 
of all unnecessary burdens upon foreign correspon- 
dence, to advance the comfort of European emigrants 
seeking a home among us, and to destroy as far as 
practicable, every barrier to free intercourse between 
the Old World and the New. 

And, lastly, cheap ocean postage will be a bond of 
peace among the nations of the earth, and will extend 
good-will among men. 

By such reasons this measure is commended. Much 
as I rejoice in the American steamers, which vindicate 
a peaceful supremacy of the seas, and help to weave a 
golden tissue between the two hemispheres, I cannot 
consider these, with all their unquestionable advan- 
tages, an equivalent for cheap ocean postage. But I 
trust that they are not' inconsistent with each other, 
and that both may happily flourish together. 

Objection was made to the resolution, as not being ad- 
dressed to the proper Committee, and a brief debate ensued, 



CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. 47 

in which Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gwin, Mr. Badger, Mr. Davis, Mr. 
Seward, Mr. Mason and Mr. Sumner, took part. It was 
urged by the hitter, in reply to objections, that the Com- 
mittee on Naval Affiiirs was the proper Committee, as at 
the present moment it is specially charged with a subject 
intimately connected with the inquiry into the importance 
and practicability of Cheap Ocean Postage. At the sugges- 
tion of Mr. Badger, the matter was allowed to lie over till 
the next day. 

On Tuesday, 9th instant, the Senate proceeded to consider 
the resolution submitted by Mr. Sumner on the 8th inst., 
relative to Ocean Steamers and Cheap Ocean Postage. On 
motion of Mr. Sumner, it was amended, and finally adopted, 
without opposition, as follows : 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post 
Roads be directed to inquire whether the present charges on 
letters carried by the Ocean Steamers are not unnecessarily 
large and burdensome to foreign correspondence, and whether 
something may not be done, and, if so, what, to secure the 
great boon of Cheap Ocean Postage. 



THE PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

ARGUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT 14tH MAY, 1852, 
ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE PARDON OF DRAYTON AND 
SAYRES, DETAINED IN PRISON AT WASHINGTON FOR HELP- 
ING THE ESCAPE OF SLATES. 



This case excited peculiar interest IMessrs. Drayton and 
Sayres had already been in prison more than four years, when 
Mr. Sumner applied to President Fillmore for their pardon. To 
this application, which was sustained by petitions from other 
quarters, the President interposed doubts of his right to exercice 
the pardoning power in their case, but expressed a desire for 
light on this point. On his invitation, Mr. Sumner laid before 
him the following paper. Shortly afterwards the pardon was 
granted. 



By tlie laws of Maryland, 1737, chapter 2, section 
4, it is provided that any person " who shall steal any 
negro or other slave," " or who shall counsel, hire, 
aid, ahet, or command any person or persons " to do 
so, shall suffer death as a felon. The punishment has 
since been changed to imprisonment, for a term not 
less than seven, nor more than twenty years. 

Fourteen years later, by the act of 1751, chapter 14, 
section 10, it was provided that "if any free person 
shall entice and persuade any slave within this province 

[48J 



PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 49 

to run away, and who shall actually run away from the 
master, owner, or overseer, and be convicted thereof, 
by confession or verdict of a jury, upon an indictment 
or information, shall forfeit and pay the full value of 
such slave, to the master or owner of such slave, to 
be levied by execution on the goods, chattels, lands, or 
tenements of the offender, and, in case of inability to 
pay the same, shall suffer one year's imprisonment 
without bail or mainprise." 

Still later, by the act of 1796, chapter 67, section 
19, " the transporting of any slave or person, held to 
service " from the State, was made a distinct oflfence, 
for which the offender was made liable in an action of 
damages, and also by indictment. 

By the act of Congress, organizing the District of 
Columbia, (Feb. 27, 1801,) it was declared that "the 
laws of the State of Maryland, as they now exist, shall 
be, and continue in force, in that part of the said 
District which was ceded by that State to the United 
States, and by them accepted as aforesaid." Under 
this provision, these ancient laws of Maryland are to 
this day of full force in the District of Columbia. 

The facts to be considered are few. Messrs. Dray- 
ton and Sayres, on indictment and trial, under the act 
of 1737, for stealing slaves, were acquitted; the jury 
rendering a verdict of "not guilty." Resort was then 
had to the statute of 1796, chapter 67, section 19, as 
follows : — 

" And be it enacted, that any person or persons who shall 
hereafter bo convicted of giving a pass to any slave, or per- 
son held to service, or shall bo found to assist, by advice, 
donation, or loan, or otherwise, the transporting of any 
5 



50 PARDOJTINQ POWEH OF THE PRESIDENT. 

slave, or any person held to service, from this State, or by 
any other unlawful means depriving the master or owner 
of the service of his slave, or person held to service, for 
every such offence the party aggrieved shall recover damages 
in an action on the case against such offender or offenders, 
and such offender or offenders also shall be liable, upon 
indictment and conviction upon verdict, confession or other- 
wise, in this State, in any county court where such offence 
shall happen, be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred 
dollars, at the discretion of the court, one half to the use 
of the master or owner of such slave, the other half to the 
county school, in case there be any, if no such school, to the 
use of the county." 

Under this statute, proceedings were instituted by 
the attorney of the District of Columbia, against these 
parties, in seventy-four different indictments, each in- 
dictment being founded on the alleged " transporting" 
of a single slave. On conviction, Drayton was sen- 
tenced on each indictment to a fine of 8140, and costs, 
in each case $19.49, amounting in the sum total to 
$11,802.20. On conviction, Sayres Avas sentenced on 
each indictment to a fine of $100 and costs, in each 
case $17.38, amounting in the sum total to $8,686.12. 
One half of the fine w'as, according to law, to the use 
of the masters or owners of the slaves transported ; 
the other half to the county school ; or, in case there 
be no such school, to the use of the county. After- 
wards, on motion of the attorney for the District, they 
were "prayed in commitment," and committed until 
the fine and costs are payed. In pursuance of this 
sentence, and on this motion, they have been detained 
in prison, in the city of Washington, from April, 1848, 
and are still in prison, unable, from poverty, to pay 
these large fines. The question now occurs as to the 



PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 51 

power of the President to pardon them, so at least as 
to relieve them from their imprisonment. 

The peculiar embarrassment in this case arises from 
the nature of the sentence. If it were simply a sen- 
tence of imprisonment, his power would be unquestion- 
able. So, also, if it were a sentence of imprisonment, 
with fine superadded, payable to the United States, 
his power would be unquestionable ; and the same 
power would extend to the case of a fine payable to 
the United States, with imprisonment as the alternative 
on non-payment of the fine. 

But in the present case, the imprisonmnent is the 
alternative for non-payment of fines, which are not 
payable to the United States, but to other parties, viz. : 
the slave owners and the county. It is important, 
however, to bear in mind, that these fines are a mere 
donation to these parties, and not a compensation for 
services rendered. These parties were not informers, 
nor were the proceedings in the nature of a qui tarn 
action. 

It should be distinctly understood, at the outset, 
that the proceedings against Drayton and Sayrcs were 
not at the suit of any informer or private individual, 
but at the prosecution of the United States by indict- 
ment. They are, therefore, removed from the authority 
of the English cases, which protect the share of an 
informer after judgment from remission, by pardon 
from the crown. 

The power of the President in the present case may 
be regarded, first, in the light of the conunon law ; 



52 PAEDONING POWER OF THE PEESIDENT. 

secondly^ under the statutes of Maryland, and thirdly^ 
under the Constitution of the United States. 

First. — As to the common laic, it may be doubtful 
whether, according to early authorities, the pardoning 
power can be used so as to bar or divest any legal 
interest, benefit, or advantage, vested in a private in- 
dividual. It is broadly stated by English writers, 
that it cannot be so used. (2 Hawkins, P. C. 392, cap. 
37, sec. 34; 17 Viner's Abridgment; 39 Prerogative 
of King JJ., art. 7.) But this principle does not 
seem to be sustained by practical cases in the United 
States, except in the instances of informers and qui 
tarn actions, while, on one occasion, in a leading case 
in Kentucky, it was rejected. {Routt v. Flemster, 7 
J. J. Marshall, 132.) 

But it is clearly established that, where the fine is 
allotted to a public body or a public ofiicer, for a pub- 
lic purpose, it may be remitted by a pardon. This 
may be illustrated by several cases. 

1. As where in Pennsylvania, the fine was for the 
benefit of the county. In this case, the court said, 
" Until the money is collected and paid into the 
treasury, the constitutional right of the Governor to 
pardon the oflfender, and remit the fine or forfeiture, 
remains in full force. They can have no more vested 
interest in the money than the Commonwealth, under 
the same circumstances, would have had ; and it can- 
not be doubted that, until the money reaches the trea- 
sury, the Governor has the power to remit. In the 
case of costs, private persons arc interested in them ; 
but as to fines and forfeitures, they are imposed upon 
principles of public policy. The latter, therefore, are 
under the exclusive control of the Governor." (Com- 



PARDONING POWER OF TIIK PRESIDENT. 53 

mo7uvealth v. Dennis/on, 9 Watts, 142.) The same 
point is also illustrated by a case in Indiana. {IluUi- 
day V. The People, 5 Oilman, 214, 217.) 

2. As where, in Georgia, the fine was to be paid 
to an inferior court, for county purposes. [Jofms v. 
Georgia, 1 Kelly, 606, 610.) 

3. As where, in South Carolina, the fine was to 
be paid to the Commissioners of Public Buildings, for 
public purposes. ( The State v. Shnpson, 1 Bailey, 378.) 
Or the Commissioners of Public Roads. ( The State v. 
Williams, 1 Nott & McCord, 26. See also Rowe v. 
State, 2 Bay, 565.) 

According to these authorities, the portion of the 
fine allotted to the county, or to the school, may be 
remitted. Of this there can be no doubt. 

Secondly. — The Statutes of Maryland, anterior to 
the organization of the District of Columbia, may also 
be regarded as an independent source of light on this 
question, since these statutes have been made the law 
of the District. And here the conclusion seems to be 
easy. 

By the Constitution of Maryland, adopted 14th Au- 
gust, 1776, it was declared — "The Governor may 
grant reprieves or pardons for any crime, except in such 
cases where the law shall otherwise direct." Notwith- 
standing these strong words of grant, which seem to 
be as broad as the common law, it was further declared, 
as if to remove all doubt, by the Legislature, in 1782, 
(chap. 42,) "That the Governor, with the advice of 
the Council, be authorized to remit the whole or any part 
of any fine, penalty, or forfeitures, heretofore imposed, 
or hereafter to be imposed, in any court of law." 
Here is no exception or limitation of any kind. By 



54 PARDOXING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

express words, the Governor is authorized to remit the 
whole or any part of any fine. Of course, under this 
clause he cannot remit a private debt ; but he may 
remit any fine. The question is not whether the fine 
be payable to the United States or other parties, but 
whether it is a fine. If it be a fine, it is in the power 
of the Governor. 

This view is strengthened by the circumstance that 
in Maryland, according to several statutes, fines were 
allotted to parties other than the government. The 
very statute of 1796, under which these proceedings 
were had, was passed subsequent to this provision 
respecting the remission of fines. It must be inter- 
preted in harmony Avith the earlier statute ; and since 
all these statutes are now the law of the District of 
Columbia, the power of the President, under these 
laws, to remit these fines, seems established without 
special reference to the common law or to the Consti- 
tution of the United States. 

If this were not the case, two different hardships 
would ensue; first, the statute of 1782 would be de- 
spoiled of its natural efficacy ; and, secondly, the minor 
offence of " transporting" a single slave would be pun- 
ishable, on non-payment of the fine, with imprisonment 
for life, while the higher offence of " stealing " a slave is 
punishable with imprisonment for a specific term, and the 
other offence of " enticing " a slave is punishable with 
a fine larger than that for transporting a slave, and on 
non-payment thereof, imprisonment for one year only. 

TJdrdhj. — Look at the case under the Constitution 
of the United States. 

By the Constitution, the President has power " to 
grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the 



PAEDOXIXG POWER OF THK PRESIDENT. 55 

United States, except in case of impeachment." Ac- 
cording to a familiar rule of interpretation, the single 
specified exception leaves the power of the President 
applicable to all other cases. Expressio unius exclusio 
est alterius. Mr. Berrien, in one of his opinions as 
Attorney-General, recognizes " the pardoning power 
as co-extcnsive with the power to punish ; " and he 
quotes with approbation the words of another writer, 
that " the power is general and unqualified, and that 
the remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, under 
the revenue laws, is included in it." (Opinions of 
Attorney-General, vol. ii. p. 756.) 

On this power, Mr. Justice Story thus remarks : 
" The power of remission of fines, penalties and for- 
feitures, is also included in it ; and may, in the last 
resort, be exercised by the Executive, although it is in 
many cases, by our laws confined to the Treasury De- 
partment. No law can abridge the constitutional 
powers of the Executive Department, or interrupt its 
right to interfere by pardon in such cases. Instances 
of the exercise of this power by the President, in re- 
mitting fines and penalties, in cases not within the 
scope of the laws, giving authority to the Treasury 
Department, have repeatedly occurred ; and their obli- 
gatory force has never been questioned." (Story, Com. 
on Constitution, vol. ii. § 1504.) 

It has been decided by the Supreme Court, after 
elaborate argument, that the Secretary of the Treasury 
has authority, under the Remission Act of the 3d 
March, 1797, cap. 361, "to remit a forfeiture or pen- 
alty accruing under the revenue laws, at any time, 
before or after a final sentence of condemnation or 
judgment for the penalty, until the money is actually 



56 PAKDOXIXG POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

paid over to the Collector for distribution ; and such 
permission extends to the shares of the forfeiture or 
penalty to which the office of the customs is entitled, 
as well as to the interest of the United States." In 
giving his opinion in this case, Mr. Justice Johnson, 
of South Carolina, made use of language much in 
point. "Mercy and justice," he said, "could only 
have been administered by halves, if collectors could 
have hurried causes to judgment, and then clung to 
the one-half of the forfeiture, in contempt of the cries 
of distress, or the mandates of the Secretary." {United 
States V. Morris, 10 Wheaton, 303.) 

A case has occurred in Kentucky, to which reference 
has been already made, in which it is confidently and 
broadly assumed that the pardoning power (under the 
Constitution) extends even to the penalties due to in- 
formers. The following passage occurs in the opinion 
of the Court: "The act of 1823 says that any prose- 
cuting attorney, who shall prosecute any person to 
conviction under it, shall be entitled to twenty-five per 
cent, of the amount of such fine as shall be collected. 
The act gives the prosecuting attorney one-fourth of 
the money when collected, but vests him with no in- 
terest in the fine or sentence, separate and distinct from 
that of the Commonwealth, that would screen his share 
from the effect of any legal operation which should, 
before collection, abrogate the whole or a part of it. 
It would require language of the strongest and most 
explicit character to authorize a presumption that the 
Legislature intended to confer any such right. Wc 
could never presume an intention to control the Gov- 
ernor's constitutional power to remit iines and forfei- 
tures. Tf he can, in this tcay, he restrained in the 



PARDONIXO rOWEH OF THE PRESIDENT. .37 

exercise of his power to remits for the fourth of a fine, 
so can he be from the half or the whole. This part of 
his prerogative cannot he curtailed. With the excep- 
tion of the case of treason, his power to remit fines 
and forfeitures, grant reprieves and jjardons, is unlim- 
tied, illimitable and nncontrollable. It has no bounds 
but his own discretion. It is no doubt politic and 
proper for the Legislature to incite prosecuting attor- 
neys and infonners, by giving them a portion of fines 
when collected ; but in so doing, the citizen cannot be 
debarred of his right of appeal to Executive clemency." 
{Routt V. Flemster, 7 J. J. Marshall, 132.) 

According to these authorities, it seems reasonable 
to infer that, under the Constitution of the United 
States, the pardoning power, which is clearly applica- 
ble to the offence of "transporting" slaves of the 
District, might remit the penalties in question. These 
penalties, though allotted to the owners and the county, 
when finally collected, are neither more nor less than 
the punishment, under sentence of a criminal court for 
an offence of which the parties stand convicted upon 
indictment. They can be collected and acquitted 
only by the United States. No process for this pur- 
pose is at the command of the slave o"vvner. He had 
no control whatever over the prosecution at any 
stage, nor did it proceed at his suggestion or informa- 
tion. The very statute under Avhich these public 
proceedings were instituted, in the name of the 
United States, secured to the slave owner his private 
action on the case for damages — thus separating the 
public from the private interests. These, it seems the 
duty of the President to keep separate, except on the 
final collection and distribution of the penalties. Pub- 



58 PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

lie policy and the ends of justice require that the pun- 
ishment for a criminal offence should, in every case, be 
exclusively subject to the supreme pardoning power, 
without dependence upon the will of any private per- 
son. An obvious case will illustrate this. Suppose, 
in the case of Drayton and Sayres, it should be ascer- 
tained beyond doubt that the conviction Avas procured 
by perjury. If, by virtue of the judgment, the slave 
owners have an interest in the imprisonment of these 
men, which cannot be touched, then the prisoners, 
unable to meet these heavy liabilities, must continue in 
perpetual imprisonment, or owe their release to the 
accident of private good- will. The President, notwith- 
standing his beneficent power to pardon, under the 
Constitution, will be powerless to remedy this evil. 
But such a state of things would be monstrous ; and 
any interpretation of the Constitution is monstrous 
wliich thus ties his hands. Mercy and justice would 
be rendered not merehj hy halves : but, owing to the 
inability of prisoners, from poverty, to pay the other 
half of the fine, they would be entirely arrested. 

The power of pardon, which is attached by the Con- 
stitution to offences generally, should not be curtailed. 
It is a generous prerogative, and should be exercised 
generously. Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictioneni. 
This is an old maxim of the law. But if it be the duty 
of a good judge to extend his jurisdiction, how much 
more true is it the duty of a good President to extend 
the field of his clemency. At least, no small doubt 
should deter him from the exercise of his prerogative. 
The conclusion from this review is as follows : 
1. By the English common law, the costs and one- 
half of the fines may be remitted. It is not certain 



rARDOXIXG rOAVER OF THE PIIESTDEXT. 59 

that by this law, as adopted in the United States, the 
other half of the fines may not also he remitted. 

2. Under the statutes of Maryland, now the law of 
the District, the Governor, and, of course, the Presi- 
dent, may remit " the whole or any part of any fine,'' 
without exception. 

3. Under the Constitution of the United States, and 
according to its true spirit, the pardoning power of the 
President is co-extensive with the power to punish, ex- 
cept in the solitary case of impeachment. 

Several courses are open to the President in the 
present case. 

I. By a general pardon he may discharge Drayton 
and Sayres from prison^ and remit all the fines and 
costs for which they are detained. Such a pardon 
would effectually operate unquestionably upon the im- 
prisonment and upon the costs, and also upon the half 
of the fines due to the county. It would be for the 
courts, on a proper application, and in the exercise of 
their just powers, to restrain it, if the pardon did not 
operate upon the other moiety. 

Among the opinions of the Attorney General, is a 
case which illustrates this point. In 1824, one Joshua 
Wingold prayed for a credit in the settlement of his 
accounts, for his proportion of a fine incurred by one 
P. Varney. It appeared that suit was instituted by 
the petitioner as Collector of the District of Bath, 
Maine, on which judgment was obtained in May, 1809 ; 
the defendant was arrested and committed to jail, under 
execution on that judgment, and the fine afterwards re- 
mitted by the President. The petitioner contended that 
the President had no constitutional or legal power to 
remit his proportion of the fine, the right to which had 



60 PARDONING POAVER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

been vested by the institution of the suit. On this Mr. 
Wirt remarks, that it is unnecessary to express an opinion 
upon the correctness of this position, " because, if it be 
correct, the act of remission by the President being 
wholly inoperative as to that portion of the fine claimed 
by the collector, his legal right to recover it remained 
in full force, notwithstanding the remission ; and it is 
his own fault if he has not enforced his right at law," 
(Opinions of Attorney General, vol. i. p. 479.) 

A general pardon cannot conclude the question, so 
as to divest any existing rights. It can do no wrong. 
AVhy should the President hesitate to exercise it ? 

II. By a limited pardon the President may discharge 
Drayton and Sayres simply and exclusively fro7n their 
imprisonment^ ivithout touching their pecuniaty lia- 
hility ; but leaving them still exposed to proceedings 
for all fines and costs, to be satisfied out of any prop- 
erty they may hereafter acquire. 

If the imprisonment had been a specific part of the 
sentence, — as if they had been sentenced to one year's 
imprisonment and a fine of one hundred dollars, —r 
beyond all question they might be discharged, by par- 
don, from this imprisonment. But where the imprison- 
ment, as in the present case, is not a specific part of 
the sentence, but simply an alternative in the nature 
of a remedy, to secure the payment of the fine, the 
power of the President cannot be less than in the 
former case. 

So far as all private parties are concerned, the im- 
prisonment is a mere matter of remedy^ which can be 
discharged without divesting the beneficiaries of any 
rights ; and, since imprisonment for debt has been 



PARDOXIXO rOWER OF THE TRESIDEXT. 61 

abolished, it is reasonable, under the circumstances, 
that this peculiar remedy should be dischargcd. 

III. By another form of limited pardon, the Presi- 
dent may discharge Drayton and Sayrcs yVowi their im- 
prisonment, also from all fines and costs in which the 

United States have an interest, without touching the 
rights of other parties. 

This would set them at liberty, but would leave 
them exposed to private proceedings at the investiga- 
tion of the owners of the " transported slaves," if any 
should be so disposed. 

IV. By still another form of pardon, reference may 
be made to the Maryland statute of 1782, under which 
the Governor is authorized " to remit the whole or any 
part of any fine," without any exception therefrom; 
and this power, now vested in the President, may be 
made the express ground for the remission of all fines 
and costs due from Drayton and Sayres. By this form 
of pardon, the case may be limited, as a precedent here- 
after, to a very narrow circle of cases. It would not 
in any way affect cases arising under the general laws 
of the Union. 

In either of these alternatives, the great object of 
tliis application would be gained — the discharge of 
these men from prison. 

Charles Sumner. 

14 May, 1852. 



TRIBUTE TO MR. RANTOUL. 

SrEECn IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, OX THE 
DEATH OF nOX. ROBERT RAXTOUL, JR., 9tH AUGUST, 1852. 



A message was received from the House of Representatives, by 
Mr. Hayes, its Chief Clerk, communicating to the Senate infor- 
mation of the death of the Hon. Robert Rantoul, Jr., a member 
of the House of Representatives from the State of Massachusetts, 
and the proceedings of the House thereon. 

The resolutions of the House of Representatives were read. 

Mr. Sumxee, said : — Mr. President, by formal mes- 
sage of the House of Representatives, we now learn 
that one of our associates in the public councils has 
died. Only a few brief days — I had almost said hours 
— have passed since he was in his accustomed seat. 
Now he is gone from us forever. He was my col- 
league and friend ; and yet, so sudden has been this 
change, that no tidings of his illness even had reached 
me, before I learned that he was already beyond the 
reach of mortal aid or consolation, and that the shadows 
of the grave had already descended upon him. He 
died here in Washington, late on Saturday evening, 
Yth August ; and his earthly remains, accompanied by 
the bereaved companion of his life, with a Committee 
of the other House, are now far on the way to Massa- 
chusetts, there to mingle dust to dust with his native 
soil. 

[62] 



TRIBUTE TO MR. RAXTOUL. C3 

The occasion does not permit me to speak at lenpjth 
of the character or services of Mr. Rantoul. A few 
words will suiRce ; nor will the language of eulogy be 
required. 

He was born 13th August, 1805, at Beverly, in the 
county of Essex, the home of Nathan Dane, final au- 
thor of the immortal Ordinance by which freedom was 
made a perpetual heir-loom in the broad region of the 
Northwest. Here, under happy auspices of family and 
neighborhood, he commenced life. Here his excellent 
father, honored for his public services, venerable also 
with years and flowing silver locks, yet lives to mourn 
his last surviving son. The sad fortune of Burke is 
renewed. He who should have been as posterity, is 
now to this father in the place of ancestor. 

Mr. Rantoul was early a member of the Legislature 
of Massachusetts, and there won his first fame. For 
many years he occupied a place on the Board of Edu- 
cation in that State. He was also, for a time, Collector 
of the Port of Boston, and afterwards Attorney of the 
United States for Massachusetts. During a brief pe- 
riod he held a seat in this body. Finally, in 1851, by 
the choice of his native District, remarkable for its in- 
telligence and public spirit, he became a Representative 
in the other branch of the National Legislature. In 
all these spheres he performed most acceptable service. 
And the future promised opportunities of a higher 
character, to which his abilities, industry, and fidel- 
ity would have amply responded. Massachusetts has 
many arrows in her well-stocked quiver ; but few could 
she so ill spare at this moment as the servant we now 
mourn. 

By original fitness, study, knowledge and various 



64 TRIBUTE TO MR. RANTOUL. 

experience, he was formed for public service. But he 
was no stranger to other pursuits. Early devoted to 
the profession of the law, he followed it with assiduity 
and success. In the antiquities of our jurisprudence, 
few were more learned. His arguments at the bar 
were thorough ; nor was his intellectual promptness in 
all emergencies of a trial easily surpassed. Literature, 
neglected by many under the pressure of professional 
life, was always cultivated by him. His taste for 
books was enduring. He was a constant student. 
Amidst his manifold labors, professional and public, he 
cherished the honorable aspiration of adding to the 
historical productions of his country. A work on the 
history of France, wherein the annals and character of 
this great nation should be portrayed by an American 
pen, had occupied much of his thoughts. I know not 
if any part was ever matured for publication. 

The practice of the law, while it sharpens the intel- 
lect, is too apt to cramp the faculties within the narrow 
limits of form, and to restrain the genial currents of 
the soul. It had no such influence on him. He was 
a Reformer. In the warfare with Evil, he was enlisted 
early and openly as a soldier for life. As such, he did 
not hesitate to encounter opposition, to bear obloquy, 
and to brave enmity. His conscience, pure as good- 
ness, sustained him in every trial — even that sharpest 
of all, the desertion of friends. And yet, while earn- 
est in his cause, his zeal was tempered beyond that of 
the common reformer. He knew well the difference 
between the ideal and the- actual^ and sought, by prac- 
tical means, in harmony with the existing public senti- 
ment, to promote the interests which he had at heart. 
He saw clearly that reform could not prevail at once, 



TRIBUTE TO MR. RANTOUL. 65 

in an hour, or in a day, but tliat it Avould be the slow 
and certain result of constant labor, testimony, and 
faith. Determined and tranquil in his ov^n convic- 
tions, he had the grace to respect the convictions of 
others. Recognizing in the social and political sys- 
tem the essential elements of stability and progress, he 
discerned at once the office of the conservative and the 
reformer. But he saw also that a blind conservatism 
was not less destructive than a blind reform. By the 
mingled caution, moderation, and earnestness of his 
labors, he seemed often to blend two characters in one 
and to be at the same time a Reforming Conservative 
and a Conservative Reformer. 

I might speak of his devotion to public improve- 
ments of all kinds, particularly to the system of rail- 
roads. But here he was on the popular side. There 
were other causes, where his struggle was keener and 
more meritorious. At a moment when his services 
were much needed he was the faithful supporter of 
common schools, the peculiar glory of New England. 
By word and example he sustained the cause of tem- 
perance. Some of his most devoted labors, commenc- 
ing in the Legislature of Massachusetts, were for the 
abolition of capital punishment. Perhaps no person 
since that consummate jurist, Edward Livingston, has 
done so much by reports, articles, letters and speeches 
to commend this reform to the country. With its 
final triumph, in the progress of civilization, his name 
Avill be indissolubly connected. There is another 
cause that commanded his early sympathies and some 
of his latest best endeavors, to which, had life been 
spared, he would have given the splendid niaturity of 
his powers. Posterity cannot forget this ; but I am 
(5* 



66 TRIBUTE TO MR. RANTOUL. 

forbidden by the occasion to name it here. Sir, in the 
long line of portraits on the walls of the ducal palace 
of Venice, commemorating its Doges, a single panel, 
where a portrait should have been, is shrouded by a 
dark curtain. But this darkened blank, in that place, 
attracts the beholder more than any picture. Let 
such a curtain fall to-day upon this theme. 

In becoming harmony with these noble causes was 
the purity of his private life. Here he was blameless. 
In manners he was modest, simple, and retiring. In 
conversation he was disposed to listen rather than to 
speak, though all were well pleased when he broke 
silence, and in apt language declared his glowing 
thoughts. But in the public assembly, before the 
people, or in the legislative hall, he was bold and tri- 
umphant. As a debater he rarely met his peer. Flu- 
ent, earnest, rapid, sharp, incisive, his words came 
forth like a flashinsr cimeter. Few could stand a^rainst 

O O 

him. He always understood his subject; and then, 
clear, logical, and determined, seeing his point before 
him, pressed forward with unrelenting power. His 
speeches on formal occasions were enriched by study, 
and contain passages of beauty. But he was most 
truly at home in dealing with practical questions aris- 
ing from the actual exigencies of life. 

Few had studied public affairs more minutely or 
intelligently. As a constant and effective member of 
the Democratic party, he had become conspicuous by 
championship of its doctrines on the currency and free 
trade. These he often discussed ; and from the am- 
plitude of his knowledge, and his overflowing famil- 
iarity with facts, statistics and the principles of politi- 
cal economy, poured upon them a luminous flood. 



TRIBUTE TO Mil. RANTOUL. 67 

But there was no topic within the wide range of our 
national concerns which did not occupy his thoughts. 
The resources and needs of the West were all known 
to him ; and Western interests were near his heart. 
As the pioneer, resting from his daily labors, learns 
the death of Raxtoul, he will feel a personal grief. 
The fishermen on the distant Eastern coast, many of 
whom are dwellers in his District, will sympathize with 
the pioneer. As these hardy children of the sea, re- 
turning in their small craft from late adventures, hear 
the sad tidings, they, too, will feel that they have 
lost a friend. And well they may. During his last 
fitful hours of life, while reason still struggled against 
disease, he was anxious for their welfare. The speech 
which, in their behalf, he had hoped soon to make on 
the floor of Congress, was then chasing through liis 
mind. Finally, in broken utterances, he gave to them 
some of his latest earthly thoughts. 

The death of such a man, so suddenly, in mid -career, 
is wxll calculated to arrest attention, and to furnisli 
admonition. From the love of family, the attachment 
of friends and the regard of fellow-citizens, he has 
been removed. Leaving behind the cares of life, the 
concerns of State, and the wretched strifes of party, 
he has ascended to those mansions where there is no 
strife, or concern, or care. At last he stands face to 
face in His presence whose service is perfect freedom. 
He has gone before. You and I, sir, and all of us, 
must follow soon. God grant that we may go with 
equal consciousness of duty done. 

I beg leave to offer the following resolutions : 

Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate mourns the death of 
Hon. Robert R.vxtotjl, Jr., l;itc a member of the House of Rep- 



68 TRIBUTE TO MK. RAXTOUL. 

resentatives, from Massacliusetts, and tenders to Lis relatives a 
sincere sympathy in this afflicting bereavement. 

Resolved, As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, 
that the Senate do now adjourn. 

The resolutions were adopted, and the Senate ad- 
journed. 



FREEDOM NxVTIONAL; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 26tH AUGUST, 
1852, ON HIS MOTION TO REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 



In THE Senate, Wednesday, 26th May, 1852, on the pre- 
sentation of a Memorial against the Fugitive Slave Bill, the fol- 
lowing passage occurred, which is properly introductory to the 
principal speech at a later day. 

Mr. Sumneh. I hold in my hand, and desire to 
present, a memorial from the representatives of the 
Society of Friends in New England, formally adopted 
at a public meeting, and authenticated by their clerk, 
in which they ask for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave 
Bill. After setting forth their sentiments on the gen- 
eral subject of slavery, the memorialists proceed as 
follows : 

" We, therefore, respectfully, but earnestly and sincerely, 
entreat you to repeal the law of the last Congress respecting 
fugitive slaves ; first and principally, because of its injustice 
towards a long sorely-oppresseti and deeply-injured people ; and, 
secondly, in order that we, together with other conscientious 
suifcrcrs, may be exempted from the penalties which it imposes 
on all who, in faithfulness to their Divine Master, and in dis- 
charge of their obligations to their distressed fellow-men, feel 
bound to regulate their conduct, even under the heaviest penal- 
ties which man can inflict for so doing, by the Divine injunction, 
* All things whatsoever ye would that men shoiild do to you, do 
ye even so to them ; ' and by the other commandment, ' Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neigh- 
bor as thyself. ' ' ' 

[69J 



70 FBEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Mr. President, this memorial is commended by the 
character of the religious association from which it pro- 
ceeds — men who mingle rarely in public affairs, but 
with austere virtue seek to carry the Christian rule into 
life. 

The President. [Mr. King, of Alabama.] The 
Chair will have to interpose. The Senator is not 
privileged to enter into a discussion of the subject 
now. The contents of the memorial, simply, are to be 
stated, and then it becomes a question whether it is to 
be received, if any objection is made to its reception. 
Silence gives consent. After it is received, he can 
make a motion with regard to its reference, and then 
make any remarks he thinks proper. 

Mr. Sumner. I have but few words to add, and 
then I propose to move the reference of the memorial 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The President. The memorial has first to be 
received before any motion as to its reference can be 
entertained. The Senator presenting a memorial states 
distinctly its objects and contents ; then it is sent to 
the Chair, if a reference of it is desired. But it is not 
in order to enter into a discussion of the merits of the 
memorial until it has been received. 

Mr. Sumner. I do not propose to enter into any 
such discussion. I have already read one part of the 
memorial, and it was my design merely to refer to the 
character of the memorialists — a usage which I have 
observed on this floor constantly — to state the course 
I should pursue, and then conclude with a motion for 
a reference. 

The President. The Chair will hear the Senator, 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 71 

if such is the pleasure of the Senate, if he docs not go 
into an elah orate discussion. 

Mr. Sumner. I have no such purpose. 

Mr. Daavson. Let him be heard. 

Several Senators. Certainly. 

Mr. Sumner. I observed that this memorial was 
commended by the character of the religious association 
from which it proceeds. It is commended, also, by its 
earnest and persuasive tone, and by the prayer which it 
presents. Offering it now, sir, I desire simply to say, 
that I shall deem it my duty, on some proper occasion 
hereafter, to express myself at length on the matter to 
which it relates. Thus far, during this session, I have 
foreborne. "With the exception of an able speech from 
my colleague [Mr. Davis], the discussion of this all- 
absorbing question has been mainly left with Senators 
from another quarter of the coimtry, by whose mutual 
differences it has been complicated, and between whom 
I have not cared to interfere. But there is a time for 
all things. Justice, also, requires that both sides should 
be heard ; and I trust not to expect too much, when, 
at some fit moment, I bespeak the clear and candid 
attention of the Senate, while I undertake to set forth, 
frankly and fully, and with entire respect for this body, 
convictions, deeply cherished in my own State, though 
disregarded here — to which I am bound by every 
sentiment of the heart, by every fibre of my being, by 
all my devotion to country, by my love of God and 
man. But, upon these I do not now enter. Suffice 
it, for the present, to say, that when I shall imdertake 
that service, I believe I shall utter nothing which, in 
any just sense, can be called sectional, unless the Con- 
stitution is sectional, and unless the sentiments of the 



72 FEEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

fathers were sectional. It is my happiness to believe, 
and my hope to be able to show, that, according to the 
true spirit of the Constitution, and according to the 
sentiments of the fathers, freedom, and not slavery^ is 
NATIONAL ; while slavery, and not freedom, is sec- 
tional. In duty to the petitioners, and with the hope 
of promoting their prayer, I move the reference of their 
petition to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

A brief debate ensued, in "which Messrs. Mangum, of North 
Carolina, Badger, of North Carolina, Hale, of New Hampshire, 
Clemens, of Alabama, Dawson, of Georgia, Adams, of Mississippi, 
Butler, of South Carolina, and Chase, of Ohio, took part ; and, 
on motion of Mr. Badger, the memorial was laid on the table. 



On Thursday, 27th July, the subject was again presented by 
Mr. Sumner to the Senate. 

Mr. Sumner. Mr. President, I have a Resolution 
which I desire to offer ; and, as it is not in order to 
debate it to-day, I give notice that I shall expect to 
call it up to-morrow, at an early moment in the morn- 
ing hour, when I shall throw myself upon the indul- 
gence of the Senate to be heard upon it. 

The Resolution was then read, as follows : 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be requested 
to consider the expediency of reporting a bill for immediate re- 
peal of the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, 
usually known as the Fugitive Slave Act. 

In pursuance of this notice, on the next day, 28th July, during 
the morning hour, an attempt was made by Mr. Sumner to call 
it up. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 73 

Ml". Sumner. Mr. President, I now ask permis- 
sion of the Senate to take up the Resolution which I 
offered yesterday. For that purpose, I move that the 
prior orders be postponed, and upon this motion I 
desire to say a word. In asking the Senate to take up 
this Resolution for consideration, I say nothing now of 
its merits, nor of the arguments by which it may be 
maintained ; nor do I at this stage anticipate any obj ec- 
tions to it on these grounds. All this will properly 
belong to the discussion of the Resolution itself — the 
main question — when it is actually before the Senate. 
The single question now is, not the Resolution, but 
whether I shall be heard upon it. 

As a Senator, under the responsibilities of my po- 
sition, I have deemed it my duty to offer this Resolu- 
tion. I may seem to have postponed this duty to an 
inconvenient period of the session, but had I attempted 
it at an earlier day, I might have exposed myself to a 
charge of a different character. It might then have been 
said that, a new-comer and inexperienced in this scene, 
without deliberation, — hastily, — rashly, — recklessly, 
I pushed this question before the country. This is not 
the case now. I have taken time, and, in the exercise 
of my most careful discretion, at last ask the attention 
of the Senate. I shrink from any appeal founded on a 
trivial personal consideration ; but should I be blamed 
for delay latterly, I may add, that though in my seat 
daily, my bodily health for some time past, down to this 
very week, has not been equal to the service I have 
undertaken. I am not sure that it is now, but I desire 
to try. 

And now again I say, the question is simply whether 
I shall be heard. In allowing me this privilege — this 
7 



74 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

right, I miglat say — you do not commit yourselves in 
any way to the principle of the Resolution ; but you 
merely follow the ordinary usage of the Senate, and 
yield to a brother Senator the opportunity which he 
craves, in the practical discharge of his duty, to express 
convictions dear to his heart, and dear to large numbers 
of his constituents. For the sake of these constituents, 
for my own sake, I now desire to be heard. Make 
such disposition of my Resolution afterward as to you 
shall seem best ; visit upon me any degree of criticism, 
censure, or displeasure, but do not deprive me of a 
hearing. " Strike, but hear.*' 

A debate ensued, in which Messrs. Mason, of Virginia, Brooke, 
of Mississippi, Charlton, of Georgia, Shields, of Illinois, Gwin, 
of California, Douglas, of Illinois, Butler, of South Carolina, and 
Borland, of Arkansas, took part. Objections to taking up the 
Resolution were pressed on the ground of " want of time," the 
"' lateness of the session," and " danger to the Union." 

The question being then taken u|X)n the motion by Mr. Sumner 
to take up his Resolution, it was rejected — Yeas 10, Nays 32 . — 
as follows : 

Yeas. — Messrs. Clarke, Davis, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Foote, 
Hamlin, Seward, Shields, Sumner, Upham, and Wade — 10. 

Nays. — Messrs. Borland, Brodhead, Brooke, Cass, Charlton, 
Clemens, Desaussure, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Fclch, 
Fish, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, King, Mallory, Mangum, Mason, 
Meriwether, Miller, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebas- 
tian, Smith, Souk', Spruauce, Toucey, and Weller — 32. 

Mr. Suriir.er was thus deprived of an opportunity to present 
his views on this important subject, and it was openly asserted 
that he should not present them on the floor of the Senate during 
the pending session. He was thus driven to watch for an ippor- 
tunity, when, according to the rules of the Senate, he might be 
heard without impediment. On one of the last days of the 
session it came. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 75 

Thursday, 2Gth August, 1852. — The Civil and Diplomatic > 
Appropriation Bill being under consideration, the following 
amendment was moved by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on tlie recom- 
mendation of the Committee on Finance. 

*' That where the ministerial officers of the United States have 
or shall incur extraordinary expenses in executing the laAvs 
thereof, the payment of which is not specifically provided for, 
the President of the United States is authorized to allow tlie 
payment thereof, under the special taxation of the District or 
Circuit Court of the District in which the said services have been 
or shall be rendered, to be paid from the appropriation for de- 
fraying the expenses of the Judiciary." 

Mr. SuMXER seized the opportunity for which he had been 
•watching, and at once moved the following amendment to the 
amendment : 

" Provided, That no such allowance shall be authorized for 
any expenses incurred in executing the Act of September 18, 
1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor ; which 
said Act is hereby repealed." 

On this he took the floor, and spoke as follows : 



Mr. President : Here is a provision for extra- 
ordinary expenses incurred in executing the laws of 
the United States. Extraordinary expenses ! ISir, be- 
neath these specious words lurks the very subject on 
which, by a solemn vote of this body, I was refused a 
hearing. Here it is ; no longer open to the charge of 
being an " abstraction," but actually presented for 
practical legislation ; not introduced by me, but by 
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], on the recom- 
mencfation of one of the important Committees of the 
Senate ; not brought forward weeks ago, when there 
was ample time for discussion, but only at this moment, 



76 FUEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

'^without any reference to the late period of the session. 
The amendment which I now offer, proposes to remove 
one chief occasion of these extraordinary expenses. 
Beyond all controversy or cavil, it is strictly in order. 
And now, at last, among these final crowded days of 
our duties here, but at this earliest opportunity, I am 
to be heard ; not as a favor, but as a right. The 
graceful usages of this body may be abandoned, but 
the established privileges of debate cannot be abridged. 
Parliamentary courtesy may be forgotten, but parlia- 
mentary law must prevail. The subject is broadly 
before the Senate. By the blessing of God, it shall be 
discussed. 

Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly sought 
to secure permanence for his imperfect institutions, by 
providing that the citizen who, at any time, attempted 
their alteration or repeal, should appear in the public 
assembly with a halter about his neck, ready to be 
drawn if his proposition failed to be adopted. A tyran- 
nical spirit among us, in unconscious imitation of this 
antique and discarded barbarism, seeks to surround an 
offensive institution with a similar safeguard. In the 
existing distemper of the public mind and at this 
present juncture, no man can enter upon the service 
which I now undertake, without a personal responsi- 
bility, such as can be sustained only by that sense of 
duty which, under God, is always our best support. 
That personal responsibility I accept. Before the Sen- 
ate and the country let me be held accountable for this 
act, and for every word which I utter. 

With me, sir, there is no alternative. Painfully 
convinced of the unutterable wrongs and woes of 
slavery ; profoundly believing that, according to the 



FREEDOM N.VTIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 77 

true spirit of the Constitution and the sentiments of 
the fathers, it can find no place under our National 
Government — that it is in every respect sectional^ 
and in no respect national — that it is always and 
everywhere the creature and dependent of the States, 
and never anywhere the creature or dependent of the 
Nation, and that the Nation can never, by legislative 
or other act, impart to it any support, under the Con- 
stitution of the United States ; with these convictions, 
I could not allow this session to reach its close, 
without making or seizing an opportunity to declare 
myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and 
cruelty, of the late enactment by Congress for the 
recovery of fugitive slaves. Full well I know, sir, 
the difficulties of this discussion, arising from preju- 
dices of opinion and from adverse conclusions, strong 
and sincere as my own. Full well I know that I am 
in a small minority, with few here to whom I may 
look for sympathy or support. Full well I know that 
I must utter things unwelcome to many in this body, 
which I cannot do without pain. Full well I know 
that the institution of slavery in our country, which I 
now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is power- 
ful — possessing a power to shake the whole land with 
a sensitiveness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. 
But, while these things may properly prompt me to 
caution and reserve, they cannot change my duty, or 
my determination to perform it. For this I willinglv 
forget myself, and all personal consequences. The 
favor and good-will of my fellow-citizens, of my 
brethren of the Senate, sir, — grateful to me as it 
justly is — I am ready, if required, to sacrifice. All 
that I am or may be, I freely offer to this cause. 



78 FEEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

And here allow me, for one moment, to refer to 
myself and my position. Sir, I have never been a 
politician. The slave of principles, I call no party 
master. By sentiment, education, and conviction, a 
friend of Human Rights, in their utmost expansion, I 
have ever most sincerely embraced the Democratic 
Idea; not, indeed, as represented or professed by any 
party, but according to its real significance, as trans- 
figured in the Declaration of Independence, and in the 
injunctions of Christianity, In this idea I saw no 
narrow advantages merely for individuals or classes, 
but the sovereignty of the people and the greatest 
happiness of all secured by equal laws. Amidst the 
vicissitudes of public affairs, I trust always to hold 
fast to this idea, and to any political party which truly 
embraces it. 

Party does not constrain me ; nor is my indepen- 
dence lessened by any relations to the office which 
gives me a title to be heard on this floor. And here, 
sir, I may speak proudly. By no effort, by no desire 
of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United 
States. Never before have I held public office of any 
kind. With the ample opportunities of private life I 
was content. No tombstone for me could bear a 
fairer inscription than this : " Here lies one who, 
without the honors or emoluments of public station, 
did something for his fellow-man." From such simple 
aspirations I was taken away by the free choice of my 
native Commonwealth, and placed in this responsible 
post of duty, without personal obligation of any kind, 
beyond what was implied in my life and published 
words. The earnest friends, by whose confidence I 
was first designated, asked nothing from me, and, 



rHEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 79 

throughout the long conflict which ended in my elec- 
tion, rejoiced in the position which I most carefully 
guarded. To all my language was uniform, that I did 
not desire to be brought forward ; that I would do 
nothing to promote the result ; that I had no pledges 
or promises to offer ; that the office should seek me, 
and not I the office ; and that it should find me in all 
respects an independent man, bound to no party and 
to no human being, but only, according to my best 
judgment, to act for the good of all. Again, sir, I 
speak with pride, both for myself and others, when I 
add that these avowals found a sympathizing response. 
In this spirit I have come here, and in this spirit I 
shall speak to-day. 

Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing 
from party tics, I throw myself upon the candor and 
magnanimity of the Senate. I now ask your attention ; 
but I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly ; 
for I shall speak openly and from the strength of my 
convictions. I may speak warmly ; for I shall speak 
from the heart. But in no event can I forget the 
amenities which belong to debate, and which especially 
become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my 
whole soul ; but here I need only borrow the language 
of slaveholders themselves ; nor would it accord with 
my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit them as 
the impersonation of the institution — Jefferson calls it 
the " enormity "' — which they cherish. Of them I do 
not speak ; but without fear and without favor, as 
without impeachment of any person, I assail this 
wrong. Again, sir, I may err ; but it will be with 
the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways of 



80 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

the Republic, with its grandest names, its surest land- 
marks, and all its original altar-fires about me. 

And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the 
objection that there is a final settlement, in principle 
and substance, of the question of Slavery, and that all 
discussion of it is closed. Both the old political par- 
ties of the country, by formal resolutions, in their 
recent conventions at Baltimore, have united in this 
declaration. On a subject which for years has agitated 
the public mind ; which yet palpitates in every heart 
and burns on every tongue ; which, in its immeasura- 
ble importance, dwarfs all other subjects; which, by 
its constant and gigantic presence, throws a shadow 
across these Halls ; which at this very time calls for 
appropriations to meet extraordinary expenses it has 
caused, they have imposed the rule of silence. Ac- 
cording to them, sir, we may speak of everything 
except that alone, which is most present in all our 
minds. 

To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that, 
with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges the very dis- 
cussion which it pretends to forbid. Such a declara- 
tion, on the eve of an election, is, of course, submitted 
to the consideration and ratification of the people. 
Debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary conse- 
quence. Silence becomes impossible. Slavery, which 
you profess to banish from the public attention, openly 
by your invitation enters every political meeting and 
every political convention. Nay, at this moment it 
stalks into this Senate, crying, like the daughters of 
the horseleech, " Give, give ! " 

But no unanimity of politicians can uphold the 



FBEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 8 1 

baseless assumption, that a law, or any conglomerate 
of laws, under the name of Compromise, or howsoever 
called, is final. Nothing can be plainer than this ; 
that, by no parliamentary device or knot, can any 
Legislature tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, 
so as to prevent the full exercise of its constitutional 
powers. Each Legislature, under a just sense of its 
responsibility, must judge for itself; and, if it think 
proper, it may revise or amend, or absolutely undo 
the work of its predecessors. The laws of the Medes 
and Persians are proverbially said to have been un- 
alterable ; but they stand forth in history as a single 
example of such irrational defiance of the true prin- 
ciples of all law. 

To make a law final, so as not to be reached by 
Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a new pro- 
vision on the Constitution. Nay, more ; it gives to 
the law a character which the very Constitution does 
not possess. The wise fathers did not treat the coun- 
try as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy ; 
but, anticipating Progress, they declared expressly 
that their great Act is not final. According to the 
Constitution itself, there is not one of its existing pro- 
visions — not even that with regard to fugitives from 
labor — which may not at all times be reached by 
amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. This is 
rational and just. Sir, nothing from man's hands, 
nor law, nor constitution, can be final. Truth alone 
is final. 

Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical 
also. The responsibility for the recent Slave Act and 
for Slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction of Con- 
gress necessarily involves the right to discuss them. 



82 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

To -separate these is impossible. Like the twenty-fifth 
rule of the House of Representatives against petitions 
on Slavery — now repealed and dishonored — the 
Compromise, as explained and urged, is a curtailment 
of the actual powers of legislation, and a perpetual 
denial of the indisputable principle that the right to 
deliberate is co-extensive with the responsibility for 
an act. To sustain Slavery, it is now proposed to 
tram2:)le on free speech. In any country this would 
be grievous ; but here, where the Constitution ex- 
pressly provides against abridging freedom of speech, 
it is a special outrage. In vain do we condemn the 
despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors 
with which they repress Liberty, and guard their own 
uncertain power. For myself, in no factious spirit, 
but solemnly and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a 
Senator of the United States, representing a free Com- 
monwealth, I protest against this wrong. On Slavery, 
as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard. 
That right I cannot, I will not abandon. " Give me 
the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely, above 
all liberties ; " these are the glowing words which 
flashed from the soul of John Milton, in his struggles 
with English tyranny. With equal fervor they should 
be echoed now by every American, not already a 
slave. 

But, sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. The 
convictions of the heart cannot be repressed. The 
utterances of conscience must be heard. They break 
forth with irrepressible might. As well attempt to 
check the tides of Ocean, the currents of the Missis- 
sippi, or the rushing waters of Niagara. The discus- 
sion of Slavery will proceed, wherever two or three are 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 83 

gathered together — by the fireside, on the highway, at 
the public meeting, in the church. The movement 
against Slavery is from the Everlasting Arm. Even 
now it is gathering its forces, soon to be confessed 
everywhere. It may not yet be felt in the high places 
of ofRce and power ; but all who can put their cars 
humbly to the ground, will hear and comprehend its 
incessant and advancing tread. 

The relations of the Government of the United 
States — I speak of the National Government — to 
Slavery, though plain and obvious, are constantly mis- 
understood. A popular belief at this moment makes 
Slavery a national institution, and, of course, renders 
its support a national duty. The extravagance of this 
error can hardly be surpassed. An institution, which our 
fathers most carefully omitted to name in the Consti- 
tution, which, according to the debates in the Conven- 
tion, they refused to cover with any " sanction," and 
which, at the original organization of the Government, 
was merely sectional, existing nowhere on the national 
territory, is now, above all other things, blazoned as 
national. Its supporters plume themselves as national. 
The old political parties, while upholding it, claim to 
be national, A National Whig is simply a Slavery 
Whig, and a National Democrat is simply a Slavery 
Democrat, in contradistinction to all who regard Slavery 
as a sectional institution, within the exclusive control 
of the States, and with which the nation has nothing 
to do. 

As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally 
strange perversion. Freedom is degraded to be sectional, 
and all who uphold it, under the national Constitution, 



84 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

share this same epithet. The honest efforts t© secure 
its blessings, everywhere within the jurisdiction of 
Congress, are scouted as sectional ; and this cause, 
which the founders of our National Government had 
so much at heart, is called sectionalism. These terms, 
now belonging to the commonplaces of political speech, 
are adopted and misapplied by most persons without 
reflection. But herein is the power of Slavery. Ac- 
cording to a curious tradition of the French language, 
Louis XIV., the grand monarch, by an accidental error 
of speech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender 
of a noun ; but Slavery has done more. It has changed 
word for word. It has taught men to say national 
instead of sectional, and sectional instead of national. 

Slavery national ! Sir, this is all a mistake and 
absurdity, fit to take a place in some new collection 
of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir Thomas Browne, 
with the ancient but exploded stories, that the toad 
has a stone in its head, and that ostriches digest iron. 
According to the true spirit of the Constitution, and 
the sentiments of the Fathers, Slavery and not Free- 
dom is sectional, while Freedom and not Slavery is 
national. On this unanswerable proposition I take 
my stand, and here commences my argument. 

The subject presents itself under two principal heads ; 
First, the true relations of the National Government 
to Slavery^ wherein it will appear that there is no 
national fountain out of which Slavery can be derived, 
and no national power, under the Constitution, by 
which it can be supported. Enlightened by this 
general survey, we shall be prepared to consider, 
Secondly, the true nature of the provision for the 
rendition of fugitives from service^ and herein espec- 



FREEDOM X.VTIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIOXAL. 85 

ially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation of 
Congress in pursuance thereof. 

I. And now for the true relations of the 
National Government to Slavery. These will 
be readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-estab- 
lished principles. 

If Slavery be national, if there be any power in the 
National Government to uphold this institution — as 
in the recent Slave Act — it must be by virtue of the 
Constitution. Nor can it be by mere inference, im- 
plication, or conjecture. According to the uniform 
admission of courts and jurists in Europe, again and 
again promulgated in our country. Slavery can be de- 
rived only from clear and special recognition. " The 
state of Slavery," said Lord Mansfield, pronouncing 
judgment in the great case of Somersett, "is of such 
a nature, that it .is incapable of being introduced on 
any reasons moral or political, hut only hy positive 
laio. It is so odious, that nothing can he sujfered 
to support it but positive law." * And a slavehold- 
ing tribunal, — the Supreme Court of Mississippi, — 
adopting the same principle, has said : 

" Slavery is condemned by reason, and the laws of nature. It 
exists and can exist only through municipal regulations. ' ' — 
{Harry v. Decker, Walker, R. 42.) 

And another slaveholding tribunal, — the Supreme 
Court of Kentucky, — has said : 

" We view this as a right existing by positive law of a muni- 
cipal character, without foundation in the law of nature or the 
unwritten and common law." — {Rankin v. Lydia, 2 Marshall, 
470.) 

* Howell's State Trials, vol. 20, p. 82. 
8 



86 FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Of course every power to uphold Slavery must have an 
origin as distinct as that of Slavery itself. Every 
presumption must be as strong against such a power 
as against Slavery. A power so peculiar and offen- 
sive — so hostile to reason — so repugnant to the law of 
nature and the inborn Rights of Man ; which despoils 
its victims of the fruits of their labor ; which sub- 
stitutes concubinage for marriage ; which abrogates 
the relation of parent and child ; which, by a denial 
of education, abases the intellect, prevents a true 
knowledge of God, and murders the very soul ; which, 
amidst a plausible physical comfort, degrades man, 
created in the Divine image, to the level of a beast ; — 
such a power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyran- 
nical, so unjust, can find no place in any system of 
Government, unless by virtue of posiLwe sanction. It 
can spring from no doubtful phrases. It must be 
declared by unambiguous words, incapable of a double 
sense. 

Slavery, I now repeat, is not mentioned in the 
Constitution. The name Slave does not pollute this 
Charter of our Liberties. No "positive" language 
gives to Congress any power to make a Slave or to 
hunt a Slave. To find even any seeming sanction for 
either, we must travel, with doubtful footsteps, beyond 
its express letter, into the region of interpretation. 
But here are rules which cannot be disobeyed. With 
electric might for Freedom, they send a pervasive 
influence through every provision, clause, and word of 
the Constitution. Each and all make Slavery impossi- 
ble as a national institution. They efface from the 
Constitution every fountain out of which it can be 
derived. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 87 

First and foremost, is the Preamhle. This discloses 
the prevailing objects and principles of the Constitu- 
tion. This is the vestibule through which all must 
pass, who would enter the sacred temple. Here are the 
inscriptions by which they are earliest impressed. Here 
they first catch the genius of the place. Here the proc- 
lamation of Liberty is soonest heard. " We the People 
of the United States," says the Preamble, "in order to 
form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
protnote the general ivclfare, and secure the blessings 
of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain 
and establish this Constitution for the United States 
of America." Thus, according to undeniable words, 
the Constitution was ordained, not to establish, secure, 
or sanction Slavery — not to promote the special in- 
terests of slaveholders — not to make Slavery national, 
in any way, form, or manner ; but to " establish jus- 
tice," "promote the general welfare," and "secure 
the blessings of Liberty." Here, surely. Liberty is 
national. 

Secondly. Next in importance to the Preamble arc 
the explicit contemporaneous declarations in the Con- 
vention which framed the Constitution, and elsewhere, 
expressed in different forms of language, but all tend- 
ing to the same conclusion. By the Preamble, the 
Constitution speaks for Freedom. By these declara- 
tions, the Fathers speak as the Constitution speaks. 
Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, of Penn- 
sylvania, broke forth in the language of an Ab(jlition- 
ist : " He never would concur in upholding domestic 
slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the 
curse of Heaven on the State where it prevailed." 



88 FKEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said : " The morality 
or wisdom of Slavery are considerations belonging to 
the States themselves." According to him, Slavery 
was sectional. 

At a later day, a discussion ensued on the clause 
touching the African slave trade, which reveals the 
definitive purposes of the Convention. From the re- 
port of Mr. Madison we learn what was said. Elbridge 
Gerry, of Massachusetts, " thought we had nothing to 
do with the conduct of the States as to Slavery, lut we 
ought to he careful not to give any sanction to it.'^ 
According to these words, he regarded Slavery as 
sectional, and would not make it national. Roger 
Sherman, of Connecticut, " was opposed to any tax 
on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, he- 
cause it implied they were property. He would not 
have Slavery national. After debate, the subject was 
committed to a Committee of eleven, who subsequently 
reported a substitute, authorizing " a tax on such 
migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the 
average of duties laid on imports^ This language, 
classifying persons with merchandise, seemed to imply 
a recognition that they were property. Mr. Sherman 
at once declared himself " against this part, as ac- 
knowledging men to he property., by taxing them as 
such under the character of slaves." Mr. Gorham 
" thought Mr. Sherman should consider the duty not 
as implying that slaves are property, but as a dis- 
couragement to the importation of them." Mr. Madi- 
son in mild juridical phrase, ^'■thought it wrong to 
admit in the Constitution the idea that there could he 
property in man.''' After discussion it was finally 
agreed to make the clause read : 



rUEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 89 

*' But a tax or duty may be imposed on sucli importation, not 
exceeding ten dollars/or each person.^^ 

The difficulty seemed then to be removed, and the 
^vholc clause was adopted. This record demonstrates 
that the word "persons" was employed in order to 
show that slaves, everywhere under the Constitution, 
were always to be regarded as persons, and not as 
property, and thus to exclude from the Constitution 
all idea that there can be property in man. Remem- 
ber well, that Mr. Sherman was opposed to the clause 
in its original form, " as acknowledging men to be 
property ;'" that Mr. Madison was also opposed to it, 
because he " thought it wrong to admit in the Consti- 
tution the idea that there could be property in man ; " 
and that, after these objections, the clause was so 
amended as to exclude the idea. But Slavery can- 
not be national, unless this idea is distinctly and 
unequivocally admitted into the Constitution. 

But the evidence still accumulates. At a still later 
day in the proceedings of the Convention, as if to set 
the seal upon the solemn determination to have no 
sanction of Slavery in the Constitution, the word 
"servitude" which appeared in the clause on the 
apportionment of representation was struck out, and 
the word "service" inserted. This was done on the 
motion of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, and the reason 
assigned for this substitution, according to Mr. Madison, 
in his authentic report of the debate, was that " the 
former was thought to express the condition of slaves, 
and the latter the ohlifrafions of free persons.'' With 
such care was Slavery excluded from the Constitution. 

Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Convention, 
8* 



90 FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

to which the Constitution, when completed, was sub- 
mitted for ratification, a veteran of the Revolution, 
General Heath, openly declared that, according to his 
view, Slavery was sectional, and not national. His 
language was pointed. "I apprehend," he says, "that 
it is not in our power to do anything for or against 
those who are in Slavery in the Southern States. No 
gentleman within these walls detests every idea of 
Slavery more than I do ; it is generally detested by 
people of this Commonwealth ; and I ardently hope 
the time will soon come, when our brethren in the 
Southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop 
to it ; but to this we have no right to compel them. 
Two questions naturally arise : If we ratify the Con- 
stitution, shall ive do anything by our act to hold the 
blacks in slavery — or shall we become partakers in 
other men's sins 1 I think neither of them J ^ 

Afterwards, in the first Congress under the Consti- 
tution, on a motion which was much debated, to 
introduce into the Impost Bill a duty on the importa- 
tion of Slaves, the same Roger Sherman, who in the 
National Convention had opposed the idea of property 
in man, authoritatively exposed the true relations of 
the Constitution to Slavery. His language was, that 
" The Constitution does not consider these persons as 
property ; it speaks of them as persons." 

Thus distinctly and constantly, from the very lips 
of the framers of the Constitution, we learn the false- 
hood of the recent assumptions in favor of Slavery and 
in derogation of Freedom. 

Thirdly. According to a familiar rule of interpre- 
tation, all laws concerning the same matter, in pari 
materia, are to be construed together. By the same 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 91 

reason, the grand political acts of the Nation are to be 
construed together, giving and receiving light from 
each other. Earlier than the Constitution was the 
Declaration of Independence, embodying, in immortal 
words, those primal truths to which our country 
pledged itself with its baptismal vows as a Nation. 
'•We hold these truths to be self-evident," says the 
Nation, " that all men are created equal ; that they arc 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights ; that among them are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these rights 
governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed." But 
this does not stand alone. There is another national 
act of similar import. On the successful close of the 
Revolution, the Continental Congress, in an address 
to the people, repeated the same lofty truth. " Let it 
be remembered," said the Nation again, " that it has 
ever been the pride and the boast of America, that the 
rights for ichich she has contended were the rights of 
human nature. By the blessing of the Author of these 
rights, they have prevailed over all opposition, and 
FORM THE BASIS of thirteen independent States." 
Such were the acts of the Nation in its united capacity. 
Whatever may be the privileges of States in their 
individual capacities, within their several local juris- 
dictions, no power can be attributed to the Nation, in 
the absence of positive, unequivocal grant, inconsistent 
with these two national declarations. Here, sir, is the 
national heart, the national soul, the national will, the 
national voice, which must inspire our interpretation 
of the Constitution, and enter into and diffuse itself 



92 FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

through all the national legislation. Thus again is 
Freedom national. 

Fourthly. Beyond these is a principle of the com- 
mon law, clear, and indisputable, a supreme rule of 
interpretation from which in this case there can be no 
appeal. In any question under the Constitution every 
word is to he construed in favor of liberty. This rule, 
which commends itself to the natural reason, is sus- 
tained by time-honored maxims of our early jurispru- 
dence. Blackstone aptly expresses it, when he says, 
that " The law is always ready to catch at anything in 
favor of liberty." * The rule is repeated in various 
forms. Favores ampliandi sunt ; odia restringcnda. 
Favors are to be amplified ; hateful tilings to be re- 
strained. Lex Anglice est lex misericordicE. The law 
of England is a law of mercy. AnglicR jura in omni 
casu liber tati dant favor em. The laws of England in 
every case show favor to liberty. And this sentiment 
breaks forth in natural, though intense, force, in the 
maxim : Impius et crudelis judicandus est qui liiertati 
non favet. He is to be adjudged impious and cruel 
who does not favor liberty. Reading the Constitution 
in the admonition of these rules, again I say Freedom 
is national. 

Fifthly. From a learned judge of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, in an opinion of the court, we 
derive the same lesson. In considering the question, 
whether a State can prohibit the importation of slaves 
as merchandise, and whether Congress, in the exercise 
of its power to regulate commerce among the States, 
can interfere with the slave-trade between the States, a 

* 2 Black. Com. 94. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 93 

principle has been enunciated, which, while protecting 
the trade from any intervention of Congress declares 
openly that the Constitution acts upon no man as 
property. Mr. Justice McLean says : " If slaves are 
considered in some of the States as merchandise, that 
cannot divest them of the leading and controlling 
quality of persons by which they are designated in the 
Constitution. The character of property is given them 
by the local law. This law is respected, and all rights 
under it are protected by the Federal authorities ; hut 
the Constitution acts upon slaves as persons and not as 
property. ..." The power over Slavery belongs 
to the States respectively. It is local in its character, 
and in its effects." * Here again Slavery is sectional, 
while Freedom is national. 

Sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpretation which, 
as api^lied to the Constitution, fill it with the breath of 
Freedom, 

" Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt." 

To the history and prevailing sentiments of the times 
we may turn for further assurance. In the Spirit of 
Freedom the Constitution was formed. In this spirit 
our Fathers always spoke and acted. In this spirit the 
National Government was first organized under Wash- 
ington. And here I recall a scene, in itself a touch- 
stone of the period, and an example for us, upon which 
we may look with pure national pride, while we learn 
anew the relations of the National Government to 
Slavery. 

The Revolution had been accomplished. The feeble 

* Groves V. Slaughter, 15 Peters, R. 507. 



94 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Govemment of tlie Confederation had. passed aAvay. 
The Constitution, slowly matured in a National Con- 
vention, discussed before the people, defended by mas- 
terly pens, had been already adopted. The thirteen 
States stood forth a nation, wherein was unity without 
consolidation, and diversity without discord. The 
hopes of all were anxiously hanging upon the new 
order of things and the mighty procession of events. 
With signal unanimity Washington was chosen Pres- 
ident. Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, he re- 
paired to New York, — where the first Congress had 
already commenced its session, — to assume his place 
as elected Chief of the Republic. On the thirtieth of 
April, 1789, the organization of the Government was 
completed by his inaguration. Entering the Senate 
Chamber, where the two Houses were assembled, he 
was informed that they awaited his readiness to re- 
ceive the oath of office. Without delay, attended by 
the Senators and Representatives, with friends and 
men of mark gathered about him, he moved to the 
balcony in front of the edifice. A countless multitude, 
thronging the oj^en street, and eagerly watching this 
great espousal, 

" With reverence look on his majestic face, 
Proud to be less, but of his god-like race." * 

The oath was administered by the Chancellor of New 
York. At this time, and in this presence, beneath 
the uncovered heavens, Washington first took this vow 
upon his lips : " I do solemnly swear that I will faith- 
fully execute the office of President of the United 

* Dryden. 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 95 

States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States." 

Over the President, on this high occasion, floated 
the national flag, with its stripes of red, and its stars 
on a field of t)lue. As his patriot eyes rested upon 
the glowing ensign, what currents must have rushed 
swiftly through his soul ! In the early days of the 
Revolution, in those darkest hours about Boston, 
after the battle of Bunker Hill, and before the Decla- 
ration of Independence, the thirteen stripes had been 
first unfurled by him, as the emblem of Union among 
the Colonies for the sake of Freedom. By him, at 
that time, they had been named the Union Flag. 
Trial, struggle and war, were now ended, and the 
Union, which they first heralded, was unalterably es- 
tablished. To every beholder, these memories nrust 
have been full of pride and consolation. But looking 
back upon the scene, there is one circumstance which, 
more than all its other associations, fills the soul ; 
more even than the suggestions of Union, which I 
prize so much. At this moment, when Wash- 
ington TOOK his first OATH TO SUPPORT THE 

Constitution of the United States, the Na- 
tional Ensign, nowhere within the National 
Territory, covered a single slave. Then, in- 
deed, was Slavery sectional, and Freedom national. 

On the sea, an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, 
Avas still, to the national scandal, tolerated under the 
national flag. In the States, as a sectional institution, 
beneath the shelter of local laws. Slavery unhappily 
found a home. But in the only territories at this time 
belonging to the nation, the broad region of the 



96 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

North-west, it had already, by the Ordinance of Free- 
dom, been made impossible, even before the adoption 
of the Constitution. The District of Columbia, with 
its fatal incumbrance, had not yet been acquired. 

The Government thus organized was Anti- Slavery 
in character. Washington Avas a slave-holder ; but it 
would be unjust to his memory not to say that he was 
an Abolitionist also. His opinions do not admit of 
question. Only a short time before the formation of 
the National Constitution, he had declared, by letter, 
" That it was among his first wishes to see some plan 
adopted, by which Slavery may be abolished by law ; " 
and again, in another letter, " That, in support of any 
legislative measure for the abolition of slavery, his 
suifrage should not be wanting ; " and still further, in 
conversation with a distinguished European Abolition- 
ist, -a travelling propagandist of Freedom, Brissot de 
Warville, recently welcomed to Mount Vernon, he 
had openly announced, that to promote this object in 
Virginia, " He desired the formation of a Society, 
and that he would second it." By this authentic tes- 
timony, he takes his place with the early patrons 
of Abolition Societies. 

By the side of Washington, as standing beneath the 
national flag he swore to support the Constitution, 
were illustrious men, whose lives and recorded words 
now rise in judgment. There was John Adams, the' 
Vice-President — great vindicator and final negotiator 
of our national independence — whose soul, flaming 
Avith freedom, broke forth in the early declaration, 
that " Consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious breach of 
trust," and whose immitigable hostility to this Avrong 
has been made immortal in his descendants. There 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 97 

also was a companion in arms, and attached friend of 
incomparable genius, the yet youthful Hamilton, who, 
as a member of the Abolition Society of New York, 
had only recently united in a solemn petition for those 
who, " though free hy the laws of God, are held in 
Slavery hy the laws of the Stated There, too, was a 
noble spirit, the ornament of his country, the exemplar 
of truth and virtue, who, like the sun, ever held an 
unerring course, John Jay. Filling the important 
post of Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Confed- 
eration, he found time to organise the Abolition Soci- 
ety of New York, and to act as its President, until, 
by the nomination of Washington, he became Chief 
Justice of the United States. In his sight. Slavery 
was an " iniquity," " a sin of crimson dye," against 
which ministers of the gospel should testify, and 
•which the Government should seek in every way to 
abolish. " Were I in the Legislature," he wrote, " I 
would present a bill for this purpose with great care, 
and I would never cease moving it till it became a 
law, or I ceased to be a member. Till America comes 
into this measure, her prayers to heaven "will be im- 
jdIous." 

But they were not alone. The convictions and 
earnest aspirations of the country were with them. 
At the North these were broad and general. At the 
South they found fervid utterance from slaveholders. 
By early and precocious efforts for " total emancipa- 
tion," the author of the Declaration of Independence 
placed himself foremost among the Abolitionists of the 
land. In language now familiar to all, and which can 
never die, he perpetually denounced Slavery. He 
exposed its pernicious influences upon master as well 
9 



98 FREEDOM XATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIOXAL, 

as slave ; declared that the love of justice and the love 
of country pleaded equally for the slave, and that the 
" abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest ob- 
ject of desire." He believed that the " sacred side 
was gaining daily recruits," and confidently looked to 
the young for the accomplishment of this good work. 
In fitful sympathy with Jefierson, was another hon- 
ored son of Virginia, the Orator of Liberty, Patrick 
Henry, who, while confessing that he was a master of 
slaves, said : " I will not, I cannot justify it. How- 
ever culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir 
to virtue, as to own the excellence and rectitude of 
her precepts, and lament my want of conformity to 
them," At this very period, in the Legislature of 
Maryland, on a bill for the relief of oppressed slaves, 
a young man, afterwards by his consummate learning 
and forensic powers, the acknowledged head of the 
American bar, William Pinkncy, in a speech of earnest, 
truthful eloquence — better far for his memory than his 
transcendent professional fame — branded Slavery as 
" iniquitous and most dishonorable ; " " founded in 
a disgraceful traffic; " "as shameful in its continuance 
as in its origin ; " and he openly declared, that, " By 
the eternal principles of natural justice, no master in 
the State has a right to hold his slave in bondage a 
single hour." 

Thus at this time spoke the Nation. The Church 
also joined its voice. And here, amidst the diversities 
of religious faith, it is instructive to observe the 
general accord. The Quakers first bore their testi- 
mony. At the adoption of the Constitution, their 
whole body, under the early teaching of George Fox, 
and by the crowning exertions of Benezet and Wool- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 99 

man, had become an orp^anized band of Abolitionists, 
penetrated by the conviction that it was unlawful to 
hold a fellow-man in bondage. The Methodists, nu- 
merous, earnest and faithful, never ceased by their 
preachers to proclaim the same truth. Their rules in 
1788 denounced, in formal language, " the buying or 
selling of bodies and souls of men, women, and chil- 
dren, with an intention to enslave them." The words 
of their great apostle, John Wesley, were constantly 
repeated. On the eve of the National Convention the 
burning tract was circulated, in which he exposes 
American slavery as the "vilest" of the world — 
*' such Slavery as is not found among the Turks at 
Algiers ; " and, after declaring " Liberty the birthright 
of every human creature, of which no human law can 
deprive him," he pleads, " If, therefore, you have any 
regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy or the 
revealed law of God,) render unto all their due. Give 
liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child 
of man, to every partaker of human nature." At the 
same time, the Presbyterians, a powerful religious 
body, inspired by the principles of John Calvin, in 
more moderate language, but by a public act, recorded 
their judgment, recommending " to all the people 
under their care to use the most prudent measures 
consistent with the interest and the state of civil so- 
ciety, to procure evenfuaUt/ the Jinal abolition of Sla- 
very in America.^^ The Congregationalists of New- 
England, also of the faith of John Calvin, and with the 
hatred of Slavery belonging to the great non-conform- 
ist, Richard Baxter, were sternly united against this 
wrong. As early as 1776, Samuel Hopkins, their 
eminent leader and divine, published his tract, show- 



100 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

ing it to be the Duty and Interest of the American 
States to emancipate all their African slaves, and 
declaring that " Slavery is in every instance wrong, 
unrighteous and oppressive — a very great and crying 
sin — there being nothing of the kind equal to it on 
the face of the earth." And, in 1791, shortly after 
the adoption of the Constitution, the second Jonathan 
Edwards, a twice-honored name, in an elaborate dis- 
course often published, called upon his country, " in 
the present blaze of light " on the injustice of slavery, 
to prepare the way for " its total abolition." This he 
gladly thought at hand. " If we judge of the future 
by the past," said the celebrated preacher, " within 
fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a 
man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of common 
robbery, or theft." 

Thus, at this time, the Church, in harmony with the 
Nation, by its leading denominations, Quakers, Meth- 
odists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, thundered 
against Slavery. The Colleges were in unison with 
the Church. Harvard University spoke by the voice 
of Massachusetts, which had already abolished Slavery. 
Dartmouth College, by one of its learned Professors, 
claimed for the slaves " equal privileges with the 
whites." Yale College, by its President, the eminent 
divine, Ezra Stiles, became the head of the Abolition 
Society of Connecticut. And the University of Wil- 
liam and Mary, in Virginia, testified its sympathy with 
this cause at this very time, by conferring upon Gran- 
ville Sharpe, the acknowledged chief of British Aboli- 
tionists, the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. 

The Literature of the land, such as then existed, 
agreed with the Nation, the Church and the College. 



fueedom: natioxal; slavery sectional. 101 

Franklin, in the last literary labor of his life ; Jeffer- 
son, in his Notes on Virginia ; Barlow, in his measured 
verse ; Rush, in a work which inspired the praise of 
Clarkson ; the ingenious author of the Algcrine Cap- 
tive — the earliest American novel, and though now 
but little known, one of the earliest American books 
republished in London — were all moved by the con- 
templation of Slavery. " If our fellow-citizens of the 
Southern States are deaf to the pleadings of nature," 
the latter exclaims in his work, " I will conjure them, 
for the sake of consistency, to cease to deprive their 
fellow-creatures of freedom, which their writers, their 
orators, representatives and senators, and even their 
Constitution of Government, have declared to be the 
inalienable birthright of man." A female writer and 
poet, earliest in our country among the graceful 
throng, Sarah Wentworth Morton, at the very period 
of the National Convention admired by the polite so- 
ciety in which she lived, poured forth her sympathies 
also. The generous labors of John Jay in behalf of 
the crushed African inspired her muse ; and, in another 
poem, commemorating a slave, who fell while vindi- 
cating his freedom, she rendered a truthful homage to 
his inalienable rights, in words which I now quote as 
part of the testimony of the times : 

" Does not the voice of reason cry, 

* Claim the first right that Nature gave ; 

From the red scourge of bondage fly, 
Nor deign to live a burdened slave ? ' " 

Such, sir, at the adoption of the Constitution and at 
the first organization of the National Government, was 
the out-spoken, unequivocal heart of the country. 
0* 



102 FBEEDOM IS-ATIOXAL ; SLAYERY SECTIONAL. 

Slavery was abhorred. Like the slave trade, it was 
regarded as transitory ;- and, by many, it was supposed 
that they would both disappear together. As the 
oracles grew mute at the coming of Christ, and a 
voice was heard, crying to mariners at sea, " Great 
Pan is dead," so at this time Slavery became dumb, 
and its death seemed to be near. Voices of Freedom 
filled the air. The patriot, the Christian, the scholar, 
the writer, the poet, vied in loyalty to this cause. All 
were Abolitionists. 

Glance now at the earliest Congress under the Con- 
stitution. From various quarters came memorials to 
this body against Slavery. Among these was one from 
the Abolition Society of Virginia, wherein Slavery is 
pronounced " not only an odious degradation, but an 
outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights 
of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the pre- 
cepts of the Gospel." Still another, of a more impor- 
tant character, proceeded from the Abolition Society of 
Pennsylvania, and was signed by Benjamin Franklin, 
as President. This venerable man, whose active life 
had been devoted to the welfare of mankind at home 
and abroad — who, both as philosopher and statesman, 
had arrested the admiration of the world — who had 
ravished the lightning from the skies and the sceptre 
from the tyrant — who, as a member of the Continental 
Congress, had set his name to the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and, as a member of the National Conven- 
tion, had again set his name to the Constitution — in 
whom more, perhaps, than in any other person, was 
embodied the true spirit of American institutions, at 
once practical and humane — than whom no one could 
be more familiar with the purposes and aspirations of 



FEEEDO>£ national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 103 

the founders — this veteran, eighty-four years of age, 
within a few months of his death, now appeared by 
petition at the bar of that Congress, whose powers he 
had helped to define and establish. This was the last 
political act of his long life. Listen to the prayer of 
Franklin : 

*' Your memoralists, particularly engaged in attending to the 
distresses arising from Slavery, believe it to be their indispensa- 
ble duty to present this subject to your notice. They have ob- 
served with real satisfaction that many important and salutary 
powers are vested in you for promoting the welfare and securing 
the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States ; and aa 
they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be admin- 
istered, without distinction of color to all descriptions of people, 
so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation, that noth- 
ing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of 
their care, will be either omitted or delayed." *' Under these 
impressions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the 
suV)ject of Slavery ; that you would be pleased to countenance the 
restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in this 
land of Freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage, and 
who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groan- 
ing in servile subjection ; that you will promote mercy and jus- 
tice towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the 
very verge of the power vested in you for DISCOURAGIJVG 
every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men." 

Important words ! in themselves a key-note of the 
times. From his grave Franklin seems still to call 
upon Congress to step to the very verge of the powers 
vested in it to discourage Slavery ; and, in making 
this prayer, he proclaims the true national policy of the 
Fathers. Not encouragement but discouragement of 
Slavery was their rule. 

Sir, enouijh has been said to show the sentiment 
which, like a vital air, surrounded the National Gov- 



104 fiieedo:m national ; slavery sectional. 

eminent as it stepped into being. In the face of this 
history, and in the absence of any positive sanction, it 
is absurd to suppose that Slavery, which under the 
Confederation was merely sectional, was now consti- 
tuted a national institution. Our fathers did not say 
with the apostate angel, " Evil be thou my good ! " 
In a different spirit they cried out to Slavery, " Get 
thee behind me, Satan ! " 

But there is yet another link in the argument. In 
the discussions which took place in the local conven- 
tions on the adoption of the Constitution, a sensitive 
desire was manifested to surround all persons under 
the Constitution with additional safeguards. Fears 
were expressed, from the supposed indeiiniteness of 
some of the powers conceded to the National Govern- 
ment, and also from the absence of a Bill of Rights. 
Massachusetts, on ratifying the Constitution, proposed 
a series of amendments, at the head of which was this, 
characterized by Samuel Adams, in the Convention, as 
" A summary of a Bill of Rights : " 

" That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly 
delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the sev- 
eral States, to be by them exercised." 

Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with 
minorities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, united in 
this proposition. In pursuance of these recommenda- 
tions, the first Congress presented for adoption the 
following article, which, being ratified by a proper 
number of States, became part of the Constitution, as 
the 10th amendment: 

*' The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the people." 



FKEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 105 

Stronger Avords could not be employed to limit the 
power under the Constitution, and to protect the people 
from all assumptions of the National Government, j)ar- 
ticularhj in derogation of Freedom. Its guardian char- 
acter commended it to the sagacious mind of Jefferson, 
who said : " I consider the foundation corner-stone 
of the Constitution of the United States to be laid upon 
the tenth article of the amendments." And Samuel 
Adams, ever watchful for Freedom, said : " It removes 
a doubt which many have entertained respecting the 
matter, gives assurance that, if any law made by the 
Federal Government shall be extended beyond the 
power granted by the Constitution, and inconsistent 
^vith the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, 
and adjudged by the courts of law to be void." 

Beyond all question, the National Government, 
ordained by the Constitution, is not general or uni- 
versal ; but special and particular. It is a Govern- 
ment of limited powers. It has no power which is 
not delegated. Especially is this clear with regard to 
an institution like Slavery. The Constitution contains 
no power to make a King or to support kingly rule. 
With similar reason it may be said, that it contains no 
power to make a slave, or to support a system of 
Slavery. The absence of all such power is hardly more 
clear in one case than in the other. But if there bo 
no such power, all national legislation upholding 
Slavery must be unconstitutional and void. The 
stream cannot be higher than the fountain-head. 
Nay more, nothing can come out of nothing ; the stream 
cannot exist, if there be no springs from which it is 
fed. 

At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clear- 



106 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

ness, review now this argument, and gather it together. 
Considering that Slavery is of such an offensive char- 
acter that it can find sanction only in "-positive law," 
and that it has no such "positive" sanction in the 
Constitution ; that the Constitution, according to its 
Preamble, was ordained " to establish justice " and 
"secure the blessings of liberty ; " that, in the Con- 
vention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the 
time, it was declared not to sanction Slavery ; that, 
according to the Declaration of Independence and the 
Address of the Continental Congress, the Nation was 
dedicated to " liberty " and the " rights of human na- 
ture ; " that, according to the principles of the common 
law, the Constitution must be interpreted openly, 
actively, and perpetually, for Freedom ; that, accord- 
ing to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts upon 
slaves, not as property, but as persons ; that, at the 
first organization of the National Government under 
Washington, Slavery had no national favor, existed 
nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national 
flag, but was openly condemned by the Nation, the 
Church, the Colleges and Literature of the time ; and, 
finally, that according to an Amendment of the Con- 
stitution, the National Government can only exercise 
powers delegated to it, among which there is none 
to support Slavery ; considering these things, sir, it is 
impossible to avoid the single conclusion that Slavery 
is in no respect a national institution, and that the 
Constitution nowhere upholds property in man. 

But there is one other special provision of the Con- 
stitution, Avhich I have reserved to this stage, not so 
much from its superior importance, but because it may 
fitly stand by itself. This alone, if practically applied, 



FREEDOM NATIONAL; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 107 

would carry Freedom to all within its influence. It is 
an amendment proposed by the first Congress, as 
follows : 

" No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, 
without due process of law.'* 

Under this aegis the liberty of every person within the 
national jurisdiction is unequivocally placed. I say 
every person. Of this there can be no question. The 
word " person " in the Constitution embraces every 
human being within its sphere, whether Caucasian, 
Indian, or African, from the President to the slave. 
Show me a person, no matter what his condition, or 
race, or color, within the national jurisdiction, and I 
confidently claim for him this protection. The natural 
meaning of the clause is clear, but a single fact of its 
history places it in the broad light of noon. As origi- 
nally recommended by North Carolina and Virginia, it 
was restrained to the freettian. Its language was, "No 
freeman ought to be deprived of his life, lihertij or 
property, but by the law of the land." In rejecting 
this limitation, the authors of the amendment revealed 
their purpose, that no person, under the National Gov- 
ernment, of whatever character, shall be deprived of 
liberty without due process of law ; that is, without 
due presentment, indictment or other judicial pro- 
ceedings. Here by this Amendment is an express 
guaranty of Personal Liberty, and an express prohi- 
bition against its invasion anywhere, at least within 
the national jurisdiction. 

Sir, apply these principles, and Slavery will again 
be as when Washington took his first oath as President, 
The Union Flag of the Republic will become once 



108 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

more the flag of Freedom, and at all points withm the 
nationaljurisdiction will refuse to cover a slave. Be- 
neath its beneficent folds, wherever it is carried, on 
land or sea, Slavery will disappear, like darkness under 
the arrows of the ascending sun — like the Spirit of 
Evil before the Angel of the Lord. 

In all national territories Slavery will be impossible. 

On the high seas, under the national flag, Slavery 
will be impossible. 

In the District of Columbia Slavery will instantly 
cease. 

Inspired by these principles, Congress can give no 
sanction to Slavery by the admission of new Slave 
States. 

Nowhere under the Constitution, can the Nation, 
by legislation or otherwise, support Slavery, hunt 
slaves, or hold property in man. 

Such, sir, are my sincere convictions. According 
to the Constitution, as I understand it, in the light of 
the Past and of its true principles, there is no other 
conclusion which is rational or tenable ; which does 
not defy the authoritative rules of interpretation ; 
which does not falsify indisputable facts of history ; 
which docs not affront the public opinion in which it 
had its birth ; and which does not dishonor the mem- 
ory of the Fathers. And yet these convictions are 
now placed under formal ban by politicians of the 
hour. The generous sentiments which filled the early 
patriots, and which impressed upon the Government 
they founded, as upon the coin they circulated, the 
image and superscription of Liberty, have lost their 
power. The slave masters, few in number, amounting 
to not more than three hundred and fifty thousand, 



FREEDOM national; SLAYERY SECTIONAL. 109 

according to the recent census, have succeeded in dic- 
tating the policy of the National Government, and 
have written Slavery on its front. And now an 
arrogant and unrelenting ostracism is applied, not only 
to all who express themselves against Slavery, but to 
every man who is unwilling to be the menial of Slavery. 
A novel test for office is introduced, which would have 
excluded all the Fathers of the Republic — even Wash- 
ington, Jefferson and Franklin ! Yes, sir. Startling 
it may be, but indisputable. Could these revered 
demigods of history once again descend upon earth 
and mingle in our affairs, not one of them could re- 
ceive a nomination from the National Convention of 
either of the two old political parties ! Out of the 
convictions of their hearts and the utterances of their 
lips against Slavery they would be condemned. 

This single fact reveals the extent to Avhich the 
National Government has departed from its true course 
and its great examples. For myself, I know no better 
aim under the Constitution, than to bring the Govern- 
ment back to the precise position on this question 
which it occupied on the auspicious morning of its 
first organization by Washington ; 

nunc retrorsum 



Vela dare, atquc iterare cursus 
Relictos ; * 

that the sentiments of the Fathers may again prevail 
M'ith our rulers, and that the National Flag may no- 
where shelter Slavery. 

To such as count this aspiration unreasonable, let 



* Horace, Carmina, Lib. I. 34. 
10 



110 FEEEDOM NATIOXAL ; SLA.VEKY SECTIONAL. 

me commend a renowned and life-giving precedent of 
English, history. As early as the days of Queen Eliza- 
beth, a courtier had boasted that the air of England 
was too pure for a slave to breathe, and the common 
law was said to forbid Slavery. And yet in the face 
of this vaunt, kindred to that of our Fathers, and so 
truly honorable, slaves were introduced from the West 
Indies. The custom of slavery gradually prevailed. 
Its positive legality was affirmed, in professional 
opinions, by two eminent lawyers, Talbot and Yorke, 
each afterwards Lord Chancellor. It was also affirmed 
on the bench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke. Eng- 
land was already a Slave State. The following adver- 
tisement, copied from a London newspaper, the Public 
Advertiser, of Nov. 22d, 17G9, shows that the journals 
there were disfigured as some of ours, even in the 
District of Columbia : 

" To be sold, a black girl, the property of J. B., eleven years 
of age, Tyho is extremely handy, works at her needle tokrably, 
an.l speaks Engl'sh perfectly well ; is of au excellent temper and 
willing disposition. Enquire of her Owner at the Angel Inn, 
behind St. Clement's Charch, in the Strand." 

At last, only three years after this advertisement, in 
1772, the single question of the legality of Slavery 
was presented to Lord Mansfield, on a writ of Habeas 
Corpus. A poor negro, named Somersett, brought to 
England as a slave, became ill, and with an inhumanity 
disgraceful even to Slavery, was turned adrift upon the 
world. Through the charity of an estimable man, the 
eminent Abolitionist, Granville Sharpe, he was re- 
stored to health, when his unfeeling and avaricious 
master again claimed him as a bondman. The claim 



FREEDOM XATIOXAL; SLAVERY SKCTIOX.VL. Ill 

was repelled. After an elaborate and protracted dis- 
cussion in Westminster Hall, marked by rare learning 
and ability, Lord Mansfield, with discreditable reluc- 
tance, sullying his great judicial name, but in trembling 
obedience to the genius of the British Constitution, 
pronounced a decree which made the early boast a 
practical verity, and rendered Slavery forever impos- 
sible in England. More than fifteen thousand persons, 
at that time held as slaves in English air — four times 
as many as are now found in this national metropolis 
— stepped forth in the happiness and dignity of free- 
men. 

With this guiding example I cannot despair. The 
time will yet come when the boast of our Fathers will 
be made a practical verity also, and Court or Con- 
gress, in the spirit of this British judgment, will proudly 
declare that nowhere under the Constitution can man 
hold property in man. For the Republic such a decree 
will be the way of peace and safety. As Slavery is 
banished from the national jurisdiction, it will cease 
to vex our national politics. It may linger in the 
States as a local institution ; but it will no longer 
engender national animosities, when it no longer de- 
mands national support. 

II. From this general review of the relatiofiis of the 
National Government to Slavery, I pass to the con- 
sideration of the TRUE NATURE OF THE PROVISION 
FOR THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE, 

embracing an examination of this provision in the 
Constitution, and especially of the recent act of Con- 
gress in pursuance thereof. And here, as I begin this 
discussion, let me bespeak anew your candor. xSot in 



112 FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

prejudice, but in the light of history and of reason, let 
us consider this subject. The way will then be easy 
and the conclusion certain. 

Much error arises from the exaggerated importance 
now attached to this provision, and from the assump- 
tions with regard to its origin and primitive character. 
It is often asserted that it was suggested by some 
special difficulty, which had become practically and 
extensively felt, anterior to the Constitution. But 
this is one of the myths or fables with which the sup- 
porters of Slavery have surrounded their false god. In 
the Articles of Confederation, while provision is made 
for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nothing is said 
of fugitive slaves or servants ; and there is no evidence 
in any quarter, until after the National Convention, of 
any hardship or solicitude on this account. No pre- 
vious voice was heard to express desire for any pro- 
vision on the subject. The story to the contrary is a 
modern fiction. 

I put aside as equally fabulous the common saying 
that this provision was one of the original compromises 
of the Constitution, and an essential condition of Union. 
Though sanctioned by eminent judicial opinions, it will 
be found that this statement has been hastily made, 
without any support in the records of the Convention, 
the only authentic evidence of the compromises ; nor 
will it be easy to find any authority for it in any 
contemporary document, speech, published letter or 
pamphlet of any kind. It is true that there were 
compromises at the formation of the Constitution, 
which were the subject of anxious debate; but this 
was not of them. 

There was a compromise between the small and 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 113 

large States, by which equality was secured to all the 
States in the Senate. There was another compromise 
finally carried, under threats from the South, on the 
motion of a New England vicnibei\ by which the Slave 
States were allowed Representatives according to the 
whole nimibcr of free persons, and " three-fifths of all 
other persons," thus securing political power on account 
of their slaves, in consideration that direct taxes should 
be ajDportioncd in the same way. Direct taxes have 
been imposed at only four brief intervals. The polit- 
ical power has been constant, and, at this moment, 
sends twenty-one members to the other House. 

There was a third compromise, Avhich cannot be 
mentioned without shame. It was that hateful bargain 
by which Congress was restrained until 1808 from the 
prohibition of the foreign slave trade, thus securing, 
down to that period, toleration for crime. This was 
pertinaciously pressed by the South, even to the extent 
of an absolute restraint on Congress. John Rutledge 
said : "If the Convention thinks North Carolina, South 
Carolina and Georgia, will ever agree to this plan [the 
Federal Constitution] unless their right to import slaves 
be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of 
those States will never be such fools as to give up so 
important an interest." Charles Pinckney said : " South 
Carolina can never receive the plan [of the Constitution] 
if it prohibits the slave trade." Charles Cotesworth 
Pinckney " thought himself bound to declare candidly 
that he did not think South Carolina would stop her 
importation of slaves in any short time." The effront- 
ery of the slave-masters was matched by the sordidness 
of the Eastern members, who yielded again. Luther 
Martin, the eminent member of the Convention, in his 
10* 



114 FEEEDOM national; SLATERY SECTIONAL. 

contemporary address to the Legislature of Maryland, 
has described the compromise. " I found," he says, 
" that the Eastern members, notwithstanding their 
aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the 
Southern States, at least mth a temporary liberty to 
prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States 
would in their turn gratify them, hy laying no restric- 
tion on navigation acts.'' The bargain was struck, and 
at this price the Southern States gained the detestable 
indulgence. At a subsequent day. Congress branded 
the slave trade as piracy,' and thus, by solemn legisla- 
tive act, adjudged this compromise to be felonious and 
wicked. 

Such are the three chief original compromises of the 
Constitution and essential conditions of Union. The 
case of fugitives from service is not of these. During 
the Convention, it was not in any way associated with 
these. Nor is there any evidence, from the records of 
this body, that the provision on this subject was re- 
garded with any peculiar interest. As its absence from 
the Articles of Confederation had not been the occasion 
of solicitude or desire, anterior to the National Con- 
vention, so it did not enter into any of the original 
plans of the Constitution. It was introduced tardily, 
at a late period of the Convention, and with very little 
and most casual discussion adopted. A few facts will 
show how utterly unfounded are the recent assump- 
tions. 

The National Convention was convoked to meet at 
Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787. 
Several members appeared at this time ; but a majority 
of the States not being represented, those present ad- 
journed from day to day until the 25th, when the 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 115 

Convention was organized by the choice of George 
Washington, as President. On the 28th, a few brief 
rules and orders were adopted. On the next day they 
commenced their great work. 

On the same day, Edmund Randolph, of slavehold- 
inff Virginia, laid before the Convention a series of 
sixteen resolutions, containing his plan for the estab- 
tishment of a New National Government. Here was 
no allusion to fugitive slaves. 

On the same day, Charles Pinckney, of slaveholding 
South Carolina, laid before the Convention what is 
called " A draft of a Federal Government, to be agreed 
upon between the free and independent States of 
America," an elaborate paper, marked by considerable 
minuteness of detail. Here are provisions, borrowed 
from the Articles of Confederation, securing to citizens 
of each State equal privileges in the several States ; 
giA^ng faith to the public records of the States ; and 
ordaining the surrender of fugitives from justice. But 
this draft, though from the flaming guardian of the slave 
interest, contained no allusion to fugitive slaves. 

In the course of the Convention other plans were 
brought forward ; on the 15th June a series of eleven 
propositions by Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, " so as 
to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the 
exigencies of Government, and the preservation of the 
Union;" on the 18th June, eleven propositions by 
ISIr. Hamilton of New York, " containing his ideas 
of a suitable plan of Government for the United 
States ; " and on the 19th June, Mr. Randolph's reso- 
lutions, originally offered on the 29th May, " as altered, 
amended, and agreed to in Committee of the Whole 
House." On tho 2r)th, tw?nty-threc resolutions, already 



116 FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

adopted on different days in the Convention, were re- 
ferred to a " Committee of Detail," to be reduced to 
the form of a Constitution. On the 6th August this 
Committee reported the finished draft of a Constitution. 
And yet in all these resolutions, plans and drafts, seven 
in number, proceeding from eminent members and from 
able Committees, no allusion was made to fugitive slaves. 
For three months the Convention was in session, and 
not a word uttered on this subject. 

At last, on the 28th August, as the Convention was 
drawing to a close, on the consideration of the article 
providing for the privileges of citizens in different 
States, we meet the first reference to this matter, in 
words worthy of note : " Gen. [Charles Cotes worth] 
Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to 
wish sojne provision should be included in favor of 
property in slaves." But he made no proposition. 
Unwilling to shock the Convention, and uncertain in 
his own mind, he only seemed to wish such a provision. 
In this vague expression of a vague desire, this idea 
first appeared. In this modest, hesitating phrase is 
the germ of the audacious, unhesitating Slave Act. 
Here is the little vapor, which has since swollen, as in 
the Arabian tale, to the power and dimensions of a 
giant. The next article under discussion provided for 
the surrender of fugitives from justice. Mr, Butler 
and Mr. Charles Pinckney, both from South Carolina, 
now moved openly to require " fugitive slaves and 
servants to be delivered up like criminals." Here was 
no disguise. With Hamlet it was now said in spirit : 

" Seems, madam, nay, it is ; I know not sfews." 
But the very boldness of the effort drew attention and 
opposition. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, at once ob- 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 117 

jectcd : " This would oblige the Executive of the State 
to do it at the public expense." Mr. Sherman, of 
Connecticut, " saw no more propriety in the public 
seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a 
horse." Under the pressure of these objections, the 
offensive proposition was quietly withdraicn — never 
more to be renewed. The article for the surrender of 
criminals was then adopted. On the next day, 29th 
August, profiting by the suggestions already made, Mr. 
Butler moved a proposition — substantially like that 
now found in the Constitution — not for the surrender 
of " fugitive slaves," as originally proposed, but simply 
of " persons held to service^'' which, without debate or 
opposition of any kind, was unanimously adopted. 

Here palpably was no labor of compromise — no 
adjustment of conflicting interests; nor even any e:^^ 
prcssion of solicitude. The clause finally adopted was 
vague and faint as the original suggestion. In its 
natural import it is not applicable to slaves. If sup- 
posed by some to be so applicable, it is clear that it was 
supposed by others to be inapplicable to them. It is 
now insisted that the term " persons held to service " 
is an equivalent or synonym for " slaves." This in- 
terpretation is rebuked by an incident, to which refer- 
ence has been already made, but which will bear 
repetition. On the 6th September — a little more than 
one brief week after the clause had been adopted, and 
when, if it was deemed to be of any significance, it could 
not have been forgotten — the very word " service " 
came under debate, and received a fixed meaning. It 
was unanimously adopted as a substitute for " servi- 
tude " in another part of the Constitution, for the 
reason that it " expressed the obligation of free per- 



118 FREEDOivi national; slatery sectional. 

sows," while the other expressed " the condition of 
Slaves." ■^*' In the face of this authentic evidence of the 
sentiments of the Convention, reported by Mr. Madison, 
it is difficult to see how the term " persons held to 
service,''' can be deemed to express anything beyond 
*' the obligations of yree ^ersows." Thus in the light 
of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its 
importance. 

The provision, which showed itself thus tardily, and 
was so slightly regarded in the National Convention, 
was neglected in much of the contemporaneous discus- 
sions before the people. In the Conventions of South 
Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, it was com- 
mended as securing important rights, though on this 
point there was a difference of opinion. In the Vir- 
ginia Convention, an eminent character, Mr. George 
Mason, with others, expressly declared that there was 
*' no security of property coming within this section." 
In the other Conventions it was disregarded. Massa- 
chusetts, while exhibiting peculiar sensitiveness at any 
responsibility for Slavery, seemed to view it with un- 
concern. One of her leading statesmen, Gen. Heath, 
in the debates of the State Convention, strenuously 
asserted that, in ratifying the Constitution, the people 
of Massachusetts " would do nothing to hold the blacks 
in Slavery." The Federalist, (No. 42,) in its classifi- 
cation of the powers of Congress, describes and groups 
a large number as those " which provide for the har- 
mony and proper intercourse among the States," and 
therein speaks of the power over public records, stand- 
ing next in the Constitution to the provision on fugi- 

* Madison's Papers, Vol. III. 1569. 



FREEDOM NATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIOXAL. 119 

tives from service ; but it fails to recognize the latter 
among the means of promoting that " harmony and 
proper intercourse ; " nor does it anywhere allude to 
the provision. 

The indifference which had thus far attended this 
subject, still continued. The earliest Act of Congress, 
passed in 1793, drew little attention. It was not origi- 
nally suggested by any difficulty or anxiety, touching 
fugitives from service, nor is there anv record of the 
times, in debate or otherwise, showing that any spe- 
cial importance Avas attached to its provisions in this 
regard. The attention of Congress had been directed 
to fugitives from justice, and, with little deliberation, 
it undertook, in the same bill, to provide for both 
classes of cases. In this accidental manner was legis- 
lation on this subject first attempted. 

There is no evidence that fugitives were often seized 
under this Act. From a competent inquirer we learn 
that twenty-six years elapsed before a single slave was 
surrendered under it in any Free State. It is certain 
that, in a case at Boston, towards the close of the last 
century, illustrated by Josiah Quincy as counsel, the 
crowd about the magistrate, at the examination, quietly 
and spontaneously opened a way for the fugitive, and 
thus the Act failed to be executed. It is also certain 
that, in Vermont, at the beginning of the century, a 
Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, on applica- 
tion for the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied 
by documentary evidence, gloriously refused compli- 
ance unless the master could show a Bill of Sale from 
the Al might)/. But even these cases passed without 
public comment. 

In 1801, the subject was introduced in the House 



120 FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

of Representatives, by an effort for another Act, Avliich, 
on consideration, was rejected. At a later day, in 
1817-18, though, still disregarded by the country, it 
seemed to excite a short-lived interest in Congress. A 
bill to provide more effectually " for reclaiming ser- 
vants and slaves, escaping from one State into another," 
was introduced into the House of Representatives by 
Mr. Pindall, of Virginia, was considered for several 
days in Committee of the "Whole, amend-ed and passed 
by this body. In the Senate, after much attention and 
warm debate, it was also passed with amendments. 
But on its return to the House for the adoption of the 
amendments, it was dropped. This effort, which, in 
the discussions of this subject, has thus far been un- 
noticed, is chiefly remarkable as the earliest recorded 
evidence of the unwarrantable assertion, now so com- 
mon, that this provision was originally of vital import- 
ance to the peace and harmony of the country. 

At last, in 1850, we have another Act, passed by 
both Houses of Congress, and approved by the Presi- 
dent, familiarly known as the Fugitive Slave Bill. As 
I read this statute, I am filled with painful emotions. 
The masterly subtlety with which it is drawn, might 
challenge admiration, if exerted for a benevolent pur- 
pose ; but in an age of sensibility and refinement, a 
machine of torture, however skilful and apt, cannot bo 
regarded without horror. Sir, in the name of the 
Constitution which it violates ; of my country which 
it dishonors ; of Humanity which it degrades ; of Chris- 
tianity which it offends ; I arraign this enactment, and 
now hold it up to the judgment of the Senate and the 
world. Again, I shrink from no rosponsibility. 1 
may seem to stand alone ; but all the patriots and mar- 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 121 

tyrs of history, all the Fathers of the Republic, are 
with mc. Sir, there is no attribute of God which does 
not unite against this Act. 

But I am to regard it now chiefly as an infringe- 
ment of the Constitution. And here its outrasres, fla- 
grant as manifold, assume the deepest dye and broadest 
character only when we consider that by its language 
it is not restrained to any special race or class, to the 
African or to the person with African blood ; but that 
any inhabitant of the United States, of whatever com- 
plexion or condition, may be its victim. Without 
discrimination of color even, and in violation of every 
presumption of freedom, the Act surrenders all, who 
maybe claimed as "owing service or labor" to the 
same tyrannical proceedings. If there be any, whose 
sympathies are not moved for the slave, who do not 
cherish the rights of the humble African, struggling 
for divine Freedom, as warmly as the rights of the 
white man, let him consider well that the rights of all 
are equally assailed. " Nephew," said Algernon Sid- 
ney in prison, on the night before his execution, " I 
value not my own life a chip ; but what concerns me 
is, that the law which takes away my life may hang 
everyone of you, whenever it is thought convenient." 

Though thus comprehensive in its provisions and 
applicable to all, there is no safeguard of Human Free- 
dom which the monster Act does not set at naught. 

It commits this great question — than which none 
is more sacred in the law — not to a solemn trial ; but 
to summary proceedings. 

It commits this question — not to one of the high 
tribunals of the land — but to the unaided judgment 
of a single petty magistrate. 
11 



122 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

It commits this question to a magistrate, appointed, 
not by the President with the consent of the Senate, 
but by the Court ; holding his office, not during good 
behavior, but merely during the will of the Court ; and 
receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to 
each individual case. 

It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, by aifi- 
davits, without the sanction of cross-examination. 

It denies the writ of Habeas Corpus, ever known as 
the Palladium of the citizen. 

Contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of 
the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back " at the 
public expense." 

Adding meanness to the violation of the Constitu- 
tion, it bribes the Commissioner by a double stipend to 
pronounce against Freedom. If he dooms a man to 
Slavery, the reward is ten dollars ; but, saving him to 
Freedom, his dole is five dollars. 

The Constitution expressly secures the " free exer- 
cise of religion ; " but this Act visits with unrelenting 
penalties the faithful men and women, who may render 
to the fugitive that countenance, succor and shelter, 
which in their conscience "religion" seems to require. 

As it is for the public weal that there should be an 
end of suits, so by the consent of civilized nations, 
these must be instituted within fixed limitations of 
time ; but this Act, exalting Slavery above even this 
practical principle of universal justice, ordains proceed- 
ings against Freedom without any reference to the 
lapse of time. 

Glancing only at these points, and not stopping for 
argument, vindication, or illustration, I come at once 
upon the two chief radical objections to this Act, ideu- 



FREEDOM national; SLAYEEY SECTIONAL. 123 

tical in principle with, those brought by our fathers 
against the British Stamp Act ; Jirst^ that it is an usur- 
pation by Congress of -powers not granted by the Con- 
stitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the 
States ; and, secondly, that it takes away Trial by Jury 
in*a question of Personal Liberty and a suit at common 
law. Either of these objections, if sustained, strikes 
at the very root of the Act. That it is obnoxious to 
both, seems beyond doubt. 

But here, at this stage, I encounter the diiRculty, 
that these objections have been already foreclosed by 
the legislation of Congress and by the decisions of the 
Supreme Court ; that as early as 1793, Congress as- 
sumed power over this subject by an Act, which failed 
to secure Trial by Jury, and that the validity of this 
Act, under the Constitution, has been affirmed by the 
Supreme Court. On examination this difficulty will 
disappear. 

The Act of 1793 proceeded from a Congress that 
had already recognized the United States Bank, char- 
tered by a previous Congress, Avhich, though sanctioned 
by the Supreme Court, has been since in high quarters 
pronounced unconstitutional. If it erred as to the 
Bank, it may have erred also as to fugitives from ser- 
vice. But the very Act contains a capital error on this 
very subject, so declared by the Supreme Court, in 
pretending to vest a portion of the judicial power of 
the Nation in State officers. This error takes from 
the Act all authority as an interpretation of the Con- 
stitution. I dismiss it. 

The decisions of the Supreme Court are entitled to 
great consideration, and will not be mentioned by me 



124 rHEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYERT SECTIONAL. 

except with respect. Among the memories of my 
youth are happy days in which I sat at the feet of this 
tribunal, while Marshall presided, with Story by 
his side. The pressure now proceeds from the case of 
Prigg V. Pennsylvania^ (16 Peters, 539,) wherein the 
power of Congress over this matter is asserted. With- 
out going into any minute criticism of this judgment, 
or considering the extent to which it is extra-judicial, 
and therefore of no binding force, all which has been 
already done at the bar in one State, and by an able 
court in another ; but conceding to it a certain degree 
of weight as a rule to the judiciary on this particular 
point, still it does not touch the grave question arising 
from the denial of Trial by Jury. This judgment was 
pronounced by Mr. Justice Story. From the interest- 
ing biography of this great jurist, recently published 
by his son, we learn that the question of Trial by Jury 
was not considered as before the Court ; so that, in 
the estimation of the jadge himself, it was still an 
open question. Here are the words : 

'* One prevailing opinion, which has created great prejudice 
against this judgment, is, that it denies the right of a person 
claimed as a fugitive from service or labor to a trial by jury. 
This mistake arises from supposing the case to involve the 
general question as to the constitutionality of the Act of 1793. 
But in fact no such question was in the case ; and the argument 
that the Act of 1703 was unconstitutional, because it did not 
provide for a trial by jury according to the requisitions of the 
sixth article in the amendments to the Constitution, having been 
suggested to my father on his return from Washington, he replied 
that this question was not argued by counsel nor considered by 
the Court, and that he should still consider it an open one." 

But whatever may be the influence of this judgment 
as a rule to the judiciary, it cannot arrest our duty as 



FREEDOM national; SLATERY SECTIONAL. 125 

legislators. And here I adopt with entire assent the 
language of President Jackson, in his memorable Veto, 
in 1832, of the Bank of the United States. To his 
course was opposed the authority of the Supreme 
Court, and this is his reply : 

" If the opinion of the Supreme Court covers the whole Tound 
of this Act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of 
this Government. The Congress, the Executive and the Court, 
must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Consti- 
tution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the 
Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, 
and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of 
the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, 
to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution, 
which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is 
of the Supreme Judges when it may be brought before them for 
judicial decision. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, 
thei-efore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive, 
when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such 
influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." 

With these authoritative words of Andrew Jackson I 
dismiss this topic. The early legislation of Congress, 
and the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot stand 
in our way. I advance to the argument. 

(1.) Now, first, of the power of Congress over this 
suhject. 

The Constitution contains powers granted to Con- 
gress, compacts between the States, and prohibitions 
addressed to the Nation and to the States. A com- 
pact or prohibition may be accompanied by a power ; 
but not necessarily, for it is essentially distinct in its 
nature. And here the single question arises, Whether 
the Constitution, by grant, general or special, confers 



126 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYERY SECTIONAL. 

upon Congress any power to legislate on the subject 
of fusritives from seiYice. ' 

The whole legislative power of Congress is derived 
from two sources ; first, from the general grant of 
power, attached to the long catalogue of powers " to 
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
the carrying into execution the foregoing powers and 
all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, or in any department 
or officer thereof; " and secondly, from special grants 
in other parts of the Constitution. As the provision 
in question does not appear in the catalogue of pow- 
ers, and docs not purport to vest any power in the 
Government of the United States, or in any depart- 
ment or officer thereof, no power to legislate on this 
subject can be derived from the general grant. Nor 
can any such power be derived from any special grant 
in any other part of the Constitution ; for none such 
exists. The conclusion must be, that no power is 
delegated to Congress over the surrender of fugitives 
from service. 

In all contemporary discussions and comments, the 
Constitution was constantly justified and recommended, 
on the ground that the powers not given to the Gov- 
ernment were withheld from it. If under its original 
provisions any doubt could have existed on this head, 
it was removed, so far as language could remove it, by 
the Tenth Amendment, which, as we have already 
seen, expressly declares, that " The powers not dele- 
gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people." Here on the 
simple text of the Constitution I might leave this 



rjREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 127 

question. But its importance justifies a more extended 
examination in a two-fold light ; firsts in the history 
of the Convention, revealing the unmistakeable inten- 
tion of its members ; and secondly, in the true princi- 
ples of our Political System, by which the powers of 
the Nation and of the States are respectively guarded. 
Look first at the history of the Convention. The 
articles of the old Confederation, adopted by the 
Continental Congress, 15th November, 1777, though 
containing no reference to fugitives from service, had 
provisions substantially like those in our present Con- 
stitution, touching the privileges of citizens in the 
several States, the surrender of fugitives from justice, 
and the credit due to the public records of States. 
But, since the Confederation had no powers not "• ex- 
pressly delegated," and as no power was delegated to 
legislate on these matters, they were nothing more 
than articles of treaty or compact. Afterwards, at the 
National Convention, these three provisions found a 
place in the first reported draft of a Constitution, and 
they were arranged in the very order which they 
occupied in the Articles of Confederation, The clause 
relating to public records stood last. Mark this fact. 
y When this clause, being in form merely a compact., 
came up for consideration in the Convention, various 
efforts were made to graft upon it a j^owcr.^^ This was 
on the very day of the adoption of the clause relating 
to fugitives from service. Charles Pinckney moved to 
commit it with a proposition for a poiccr to establish 
uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy and foreign 
bills of exchange. Mr. Madison was in favor of a 
power for the execution of- judgments in other States. 
Gouverneur Morris on the same day moved to commit 



128 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLATERY SECTIONAL. 

a further proposition for a power " to determine the 
proof and effect of such acts, records and proceedings." 
Amidst all these efforts to associate a power with this 
compact, it is clear that nobody supposed that any 
such already existed. This narrative places the views 
of the Convention beyond question. 

The compact regarding public records, together with 
these various propositions, was referred to a Committee, 
on which were Mr. Randolph and Mr. Wilson, with 
John Rutledge, of South Carolina, as chairman."^ After 
several days, they reported the compact, with a poiver 
in Congress to prescribe by general laws the manner in 
which such records shall be proved. / A discussion 
ensued, in which Mr. Randolph complained that the 
" definition of the powers of the Government was so 
loose as to give it opportunities of usurping all the 
State powers. He was for not going further than the 
report, which enables the Legislature to provide for the 
effect of judgments y The clause of compact with the 
power attached was then adopted, and is now a part 
of the Constitution. <?' In presence of this solicitude for 
the preservation of " State powers," even while con- 
sidering a proposition for an express power, and also 
of the distinct statement of Mr. Randolph, that he 
" was not for going further than the report,' it is 
evident that the idea could not then have occurred, 
that a power was coupled with the naked clause of 
compact on fugitives from service. 

At a later day, the various clauses and articles 
severally adopted from time to time in Convention, 
were referred to a committee of revision and arrange- 
ment, that they might be reduced to form as a con- 
nected whole. aHctc another change was made. The 



FREEDOM N.VTIOXAL ; SLAVEEY SECTIONAL. 129 

clause relating to public records, with the power at- 
tached, M'as taken from its original place at the bottom 
of the clauses of compact, and j^romoted to stand first 
in the article, as a distinct scctionjjf while the other 
clauses of compact concerning citizens, fugitives from 
justice, and fugitives from service, each and all with- 
out any power attached, by a natural association com- 
pose but a single section, thus : 

"ARTICLE IV. 

" Sectiox 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each 
State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every 
other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe 
the manner in which such acts, records^ and proceedings shall be 
proved, and the effect thereof. 

" Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several kLtates. 

" A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or otlicr 
crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, 
shall, on demand of the Executive authority of the State from 
which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having 
jurisdiction of the crime. 

" No person held to service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom 
such service or labor may be due. 

" Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress 
into this Union ; but no new State shall be formed or erected 
within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed 
by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without 
the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well 
as of the Congress. 

** The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all 
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other 
property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this 



130 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of 
the Uiiited States, or of any particular State. 

''Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every 
State in this Union a republican form of Government, and shall 
protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the 
Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot 
be convened,) against domestic violence." 

Here is tlie whole article. It will be observed that 
the third section immediately following the triad section 
of compacts, contains two specific powers, one with 
regard to new States, and the other with regard to the 
Public Treasury. These are naturally grouped to- 
gether, while the fourth section of this same article, 
which is distinct in its character, is placed by itself. 
In the absence of all specific information, reason alone 
can determine why this arrangement was made. But 
the conclusion is obvious, that, in the Adew of the 
Committee and of the Convention, each of these sec- 
tions differs from the others. The first contains a 
compact with a grant of power. The second contains 
provisions, all of which are simple compacts, and two 
of which were confessedly simple compacts in the old 
Articles of Confederation, from which, unchanged in 
letter or spirit, they were borrowed. The third is a 
two-fold grant of power to Congress, without any com- 
pact. The fourth is neither power nor compact merely, 
nor both united, but a solemn injunction upon the 
National Government to perform an important duty. 

The framors of the Constitution were wise and care- 
ful men, who had a reason for what they did, and who 
understood the language Avhich they employed. They 
did not, after discussion, incorj^orate into their work 
any superfluous provision ; nor did they without design 



FEEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 131 

adopt the peculiar arrangement in which it appears. 
In adding to the record compact the express grant of 
power, they testified not only their desire for such 
power in Congress ; but their conviction, that, without 
an express grant, it would not exist. But if an ex- 
press grant was necessary in this case, it was equally 
necessary in all the other cases. Expi^essum facit. 
cessare taciturn. Especially, in view of its odious 
character, was it necessary in the case of fugitives from 
service. In abstaining from any such grant, and then, 
in grouping the bare compact with other similar com- 
pacts, separate from every grant of power, they have 
most significantly testified their purpose. They not 
only decline all addition of any such power to the 
compact, but, to render misapprehension impossible, to 
make assurance doubly sure, to exclude any contrary 
conclusion, they punctiliously arrange the clauses, on 
the principle of noscitur a sociis, so as to distinguish 
all the grants of power, but especially to make the 
new grant of power, in the case of public records, 
stand forth in the front by itself, severed from the 
mere naked compacts with which it was originally 
associated. 

Thus the proceedings of the Convention show that 
the founders understood tlie necessity of powers in cer- 
tain cases, and, on consideration, most jealously granted 
them. A closing example will strengthen the argu- 
ment. Congress is expressly empowered " to establish 
an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws 
on the subject of Bankruptcies, throughout the United 
States.'^ Without this provision these two subjects 
would have been within the control of the States, and 
the Nation would have had no power to cstallish an 



132 FREEDOM national; slaveey sectional. 

uniform rule thereupon. Now, instead of the existing 
compact on fugitives from service, it would have been 
easy, had any such desire prevailed, to add this case to 
the clause on Naturalization and Bankruptcies, and to 
empower Congress to establish an uniforat rule 

FOR the surrender OF FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE 

THROUGHOUT THE United States. Thcn, of coursc, 
whenever Congress undertook' to exercise the power, 
all State control of the subject would have been super- 
seded. The National Government would have been 
constituted, like Nimrod, the mighty Hunter, with 
power to gather the huntsmen, to halloo the pack, and 
to direct the chase of men, ranging at will, without 
regard to boundaries or jurisdictions, throughout all 
the States. But no person in the Convention, not one 
of the reckless partisans of slavery, was so audacious 
as to make this proposition. Had it been distinctly 
made, it would have been distinctly denied. 

The fact that the provision on this subject was 
adopted unanimously, while showing the little impor- 
tance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, 
testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a 
source of National poioer over Slavery. It will be 
remembered, that, among the members of the Conven- 
tion, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said, that he 
*' never would concur in upholding domestic slavery ; " 
Elbridge Gerry, who thought " we ought to be careful 
not to give any sanction to it;^' Roger Sherman, who 
was OPPOSED to any clause " acknowledging men to be 
property ; " James Madison, who " thought it wrong 
to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could 
be property in man;" and Benjamin Franklin, who 
likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. 



> 



FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 133 

In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is 
absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to 
any provision by which the National Government, the 
work of their hands, dedicated to Freedom, could be 
made the most offensive instrument of Slavery. 

Thus much for the evidence from the history of the 
Convention. But the true principles of our Political 
System are in harmony with this conclusion of his- 
tory ; and here let me say a word of State Rights. 

It was the purpose of our fathers to create a Na- 
tional Government, and to endow it with adequate 
powers. They had known the perils of imbecility, 
discord and confusion, during the uncertain days of 
the Confederation, and desired a Government which 
should be a true bond of Union and an efficient organ 
of the national interests at home and abroad. But 
while fashioning this agency, they fully recognized 
the Governments of the States. To the nation were 
delegated high powers, essential to the national inter- 
ests, but specific in character and limited in number. 
To the States and to the people were reserved the 
powers, general in character and unlimited in number, 
not delegated to the Nation or prohibited to the 
States. 

The integrity of our Political System depends upon 
harmony in the operations of the Nation and of the 
States. While the Nation within its wide orbit is su- 
preme, the States move with equal supremacy in their 
own. But from the necessity of the case, the supremacy 
of each in its proper place excludes the other. The 
Nation cannot exercise rights reserved to the States ; 
nor can the States interfere with the powers of the 
Nation. Any such action on either side is a usurpa- 
12 



134 FREEDOM ]S'ATIO]SrAL ; SLATEKY SECTIONAL. 

tion. These principles were distinctly declared by 
Mr. Jefferson, in 1798, in words often adopted since ; 
and which, must find acceptance from all parties : 

" That the several States composing the United States of America 
are not united upon the principle of unlimited submission to the 
General Government ; but that by compact, under the style and 
title of the Constitution of the United States and of the amend- 
ments thereto, they consti* 'ted a General Government for special 
purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, 
reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their 
own self-government, and that wheresoever the General Govern- 
ment assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorized, 
void, and of no force.'' 

But I have already amply shown to-day that Slavery 
is in no respect national — that it is not within the 
sphere of national activity — that it has no " positive " 
support in the Constitution, and that any interpreta- 
tion thereof consistent with this principle would be 
abhorrent to the sentiments of its founders. Slavery 
is a local institution, peculiar to the States and under 
the guardianship of State Rights. It is impossible, 
without violence, at once to the spirit and to the letter 
of the Constitution, to attribute to Congress any 
power to legislate, either for its abolition in the States 
or its support anywhere. Non-Irdervcntion is the rule 
prescribed to the Nation. Regarding the question 
only in its more general aspects, and putting aside, 
for the moment, the perfect evidence from the records 
of the Convention, it is palpable that there is no 
national fountain out of which the existing Slave Act 
can be derived. 

But this Act is not only an unwarrantable assump- 
tion of power by the Nation ; it is also an infraction 



FREEDOM NATION'AL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 135 

of rigTits reserved to the States. Everywhere within 
their borders the States are the peculiar guardians of 
personal libcrtij. By Jury and Habeas Corpus to save 
the citizen harmless against all assault is among their 
duties and rights. To his State the citizen when 
oppressed may appeal, nor should he find that appeal 
denied. But this Act despoils him of his rights, and 
despoils his State of all power to protect him. It 
subjects him to the wretched chances of false oaths, 
forged papers and facile commissioners, and takes 
from him every safeguard. Now, if the slaveholder 
has a right to be secure at home in the enjoyment of 
Slavery^ so also has the freeman of the North — and 
every person there is presumed to be a freeman — an 
equal right to be secure at Jiome in the enjoyment of 
Freedom. The same principle of State Rights by 
which Slavery is protected in the Slave States throws 
an impenetrable shield over Freedom in the Free 
States. And here, let me say, is the only security for 
Slavery in the Slave States as for Freedom in the 
Free States. In the present fatal overthrow of State 
Rights you teach a lesson which may return to plague 
the teacher. Compelling the National Government to 
stretch its Briarean arms into the Free States, for the 
sake of Slavery, you show openly how it may stretch 
these same hundred giant arms into the Slave States 
for the sake of Freedom. This lesson was not taught 
by our fathers. 

And here I end this branch of the question. The 
true principles of our Political System, the history of 
the National Convention, the natural interpretation 
of the Convention, all teach that this Act is a usurpa- 
tion by Congress of powers that do not belong to it. 



136 FREEDOM national; slayeet sectional. 

and an infraction of rights secured to the States. It 
is a sword, whose handle is at the National Capital, 
and whose point is everywhere in the States. A 
weapon so terrible to Personal Liberty the Nation has 
no power to grasp. 

(2.) And now of the denial of Trial hy Jury. Ad- 
mitting, for the moment, that Congress is entrusted 
with power over Ihis subject, which truth disowns, 
still the Act is again radically unconstitutional from 
its denial of Trial by Jury in a question of Personal 
Liberty and a suit at common law. Since on the one 
side there is a claim of property, and on the other of 
liberty, both property and liberty are involved in the 
issue. To this claim on either side is attached Trial 
by Jury. 

To me, sir, regarding this matter in the light of the 
common law and in the blaze of free institutions, it 
has always seemed impossible to arrive at any other 
conclusion. If the language of the Constitution were 
open to doubt, which it is not, still all the presump- 
tions of law, all the leanings for Freedom, all the 
suggestions of justice, plead angel-tongued for this 
right. Nobody doubts that Congress, if it legislates 
on this matter, may allow a Trial by Jury. But if it 
may, so overwhelming is the claim of justice, it must. 
Beyond this, however, the question is determined by 
the precise letter of the Constitution. 

Several expressions in the provision for the surren- 
der of fugitives from service, show the essential char- 
acter of the proceedings. In the first place, the 
person must be, not merely charged, as in the case 
of fugitives from justice, but actually held to service 



FREEDOM NATIONAL'; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 137 

in the State from which he escaped. In the second 
place, he must be " delivered up on claim of the party 
to whom such labor is due J" These two facts, that 
he was held to service, and that his service was due to 
his claimant, are directly placed in issue, and must be 
proved. Two necessary incidents of the delivery may 
also be observed. First, it must be made in the State 
where the fugitive is found ; and, secondly, it restores 
to the claimant his complete control over the person 
of the fugitive. From these circumstances it is evi- 
dent that the proceedings cannot be regarded, in any 
just sense, as preliminary, or ancillary to some future 
formal trial, but as complete in themselves, final and 
conclusive. 

And these proceedings determine on the one side 
the question of property, and on the other the sacred 
question of Personal Liberty in its most transcendent 
form ; not merely Liberty for a day or a year, but for 
life, and the Liberty of generations that shall come 
after, so long as Slavery endures. To these questions, 
the Constitution, by two specific provisions, attaches 
the Trial by Jury. One of these is the familiar clause, 
already adduced : " No person shall be deprived of 
life, liberty or property, without due process of Jaw ; " 
that is, without due proceedings at law, with Trial by 
Jury. Not stopping to dwell on this, I press at once 
to the other provision, which is still more express : 
" In suits at common law, where the value in contro- 
versy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of Trial 
by Jury shall be preserved."' This clause, which was 
not in the original Constitution, when first adopted, 
was suggested by the very spirit of Freedom. At the 
close of the National Convention, Elbridge Gerry re- 
12* 



138 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; ISLAYERY SECTIONAL. 

fused to sign the Constitution, because, among other 
things, it established a " tribunal without juries, a Star 
Chamber as to civil cases." Many united in his op- 
position, and on the recommendation of the First 
Congress this additional safeguard was adopted as an 
amendment. 

Now, regarding the question as one of property, or 
of Personal Liberty, in either alternative the Trial by 
Jury is secured. For this position authority is ample. 
In the debate on the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1817-18, 
a Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Smith, anxious 
for the asserted right of property, objected, on this 
very floor, to a reference of the question, under the 
Avrit of Habeas Corpus, to a judge without a jury. 
Speaking solely for property, these were his words : 

" This would give the Judge the sole power of deciding the 
right of property the master claims in his slaves, instead of try- 
ing that right by a jury, as prescribed by the Constitution. He 
would be judge of matters of law and matters of fact ; clothed 
with all the powers of a court. Such a principle is unknown in 
your system of jurisprudence. Your Constitution has forbid it. 
It preserves the riglit of Trial by Jury in all cases where the value 
in controversy exceeds twenty dollars." — (Debates in JVational 
Intelligencer, June 15, 1818.) 

But this provision has been repeatedly discussed by 
the Supreme Court, so that its meaning is not open to 
doubt. Three conditions are necessary. First, the 
proceedings must be " a suit ; " secondly, " at common 
law ; " and thirdly, " where the value in controversy 
exceeds twenty dollars." In every such case " the right 
of Trial by Jury s/ta/Z be preserved." The decisions of 
the Supreme Court expressly touch each of these points. 

First. In the case of Cohens v. Virginia, (G Whca- 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 139 

ton, 407,) the Court say : " What is a suit 7 We 
understand it to be the prosecution of some chiim, 
demand or request." Of course, then, the " claim " 
for a fugitive must be " a suit." 

Secondly. In the case of Parsons v. Bedford, (3 
Peters, 456,) -while considering this very clause, the 
Court say : " By common law is meant not merely suits 
which the common law recognized among its old and 
settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights 
were to be ascertained and determined. In a just 
sense, the Amendment may well be construed to em- 
brace all suits, which are not of Equity or Admiralty 
jurisdiction, ichatever may he the peculiar form which 
they jiiay assume to settle legal rights.'^ Now, since 
the claim for a fugitive is not a suit in Equity or Ad- 
miralty, but a suit to settle what are called legal 
rights, it must, of course, be " a suit at common law." 

Thirdly. In the case of Lee v. Lee, (8 Peters, 44,) 
on a question whether " the value in controversy " 
was " one thousand dollars and upwards," it was ob- 
jected that the appellants, who were petitioners for 
Freedom, were not of the value of one thousand dollars. 
But the Court said : " The matter in dispute is the 
Freedom of the petitioners. This is not susceptible 
of pecuniary valuation. No doubt is entertained of 
the jurisdiction of the Court." Of course, then, since 
liberty is above price, the claim to any fugitive always 
and necessarily presumes that " the value in contro- 
versy exceeds twenty dollars." 

By these successive steps, sustained by decisions of 
the highest tribunal, it appears, as in a diagram, th.at 
the right of Trial by Jury is secured to the fugitive 
from service. 



140 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYEEY SECTIONAL. 

This conclusion needs no further authority ; but it 
may receive curious illustration from the ancient records 
of the common law, so familiar and dear to the framers 
of the Constitution. It is said by Mr. Burke, in his 
magnificent speech on Conciliation with America, that 
" nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries were 
sold in America as in England," carrying thither the 
knowledge of those vital principles of Freedom, which 
were the boast of the British Constitution. Imbued 
by these, the earliest Continental Congress, in 1774, 
declared, " That the respective Colonies are entitled to 
the common law of England, and especially to the 
great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their 
peers of the vicinage according to the course of that 
law." Thus, amidst the troubles which heralded the 
Revolution, the common law was claimed by our 
fathers as a birthright. 

Now, although the common law may not be ap- 
proached as a source of jurisdiction under the National 
Constitution — and on this point I do not dwell — it 
is clear that it may be employed to determine the mean- 
ing of technical terms in the Constitution borrowed from 
this law. This, indeed, is expressly sanctioned by Mr. 
Madison, in his celebrated report of 1799, while re- 
straining the extent to which the common law may be 
employed. Thus by this law we learn the nature of 
Trial by Jury, which, though secured, is not described 
by the Constitution ; also of Bills of Attainder, the 
Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Impeachment, all technical 
terms of the Constitution borrowed from the common 
law. By this law, and its associate Chancery, we 
learn what are cases in law and equity to which the 
judicial power of the United States is extended. These 



FKEEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 141 

instances I adduce merely by way of example. Of 
course also in the same way we learn what in rcalitv 
arc suits at common law. 

Now, on principle and authority, a claim for the 
delivery of a fugitive slave is a suit at common law, and 
is embraced naturally and necessarily in this class of 
judicial proceedings. This proposition can be placed 
beyond question. And here, especially, let me ask 
the attention of all learned in the law. On this point, 
as on every other other in this argument, I challenge 
inquiry and answer. 

History painfully records, that during the early days 
of the common law, and down even to a late ^Deriod, a 
system of slavery existed in England, known under 
the name of villanage. The slave was generally called 
a villain, though in the original Latin forms of judicial 
proceedings, he was termed nativus, implying slavery 
by birth. The incidents of this condition have been 
minutely described, and also the mutual remedies of 
master and slave, all of which were regulated by 
the common law. Slaves sometimes then, as now, 
escaped from their masters. The claim for them aft or 
such escape was prosecuted by a " suit at common law," 
to which, as to every suit at common law, the Trial by 
Jury was necessarily attached. Blackstone, in his 
Commentaries, (Vol. II. p. 93,) in words which must 
have been known to all the lawyers of the Convention, 
said of villains: "They could not leave their lord 
without liis permission, but if they ran away, or wore 
purloined from him, might he claimed and recovered 
hy ACTION, like leasts or other cattle.'^ This very 
word " action " of itself implies " a suit at common 
law," with Trial by Jury. 



142 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYEET SECTIONAL. 

From other sources we learn precisely wliat the 
action was. That great expounder of the ancient law, 
Mr. Hargrave, says, " That Year Books and Books of 
Entries are full of the forms used in pleading a title 
to villains." Though no longer of practical value in 
England, they remain as monuments of jurisprudence, 
and as mementoes of a barbarous institution. He 
thus describes the remedy of the master at common 
law : 

" The lord's remedy for a fugitive villain was, either by 
seizure or by suing out a writ of JVativo Habendo, or Neifty, as 
it is sometimes called. If the lord seized, the villain's most effec- 
tual mode of recovering liberty was by the writ of Homine Re- 
plegiando, which had great advantage over the writ of Habeas 
Corpus. In the Habeas Corjms the return cannot be contested 
by pleading against the truth of it, and consequently on a Habeas 
Corpus the question of liberty cannot go to a jury for trial. 
But in the Homine Replcgiando it was otherwise. The plaintiff, 
on the defendant's pleading villanage, had the same opportunity 
of contesting it, as when impleaded by the lord in a JVativo 
Habcndo". If the lord sued out a JSTativo Habendo, and the vil- 
lanage was denied, in which case the sheriff could not seize the 
villain, the lord was then to enter his plaint in the county court, 
and as the sheriff was not allowed to try the question of villa- 
nage in his court, the lord could not have any benctit from the 
writ, without removing the cause by the writ of Pone into the 
King's Bench or Common Pleas." — (20 Howell's State Trials, 
38, note.) 

The authority of Mr. Hargrave is sufficient. But I 
desire to place this matter beyond all cavil. From the 
Digest of Lord Chief Baron Comyns, which, at the 
adoption of the Constitution, was one of the classics of 
our jurisprudence, I derive another description of the 
remedy of the master : 

" If. the lord claims an inheritance in his villain, who flics from 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 113 

his lord against his will, and lives in a place out of the manor, 
to which lie is regardant, the lord shall have a JVativo Habendo. 
And npon such writ, directed to the sheriff, he may seize him 
whu does not deny himself to be a villain. But if the defendant 
say that he is a Free Man, the sheriff cannot seize him, but the 
lord must remove the writ by Pone before the Justices in Eire, 
or in C. B., where he must count upon it." ■ — (Comyns' Digest — 
Villanage, C. 1.) 

An early writer of peculiar authority, Fitzherbert, in 
his Natura Brevium, on the writs of the common law, 
thus describes these proceedings : 

" The writ de JVativo Habendo lieth for the lord who claimeth 
inheritance in any villain, ivhen his villain is run from him, 
and is remaining within any place out of the manor unto wliich 
he is regardant, or when he departeth from his lord against the 
lord's will ; and the writ shall be directed to the sheriff. And 
the sheriff may seize the villain, and deliver him unto his lord, 
if the villain confess unto the sheriff that he is his villain ; but 
if the villain say to the sheriff that he is frank, then it seemeth 
that the sheriff ought not to seize him ; as it is in a replevin, if 
the defendant claim property, the sheriff cannot replevy the 
cattle, but the party ought to sue a writ de Proprietate Pro- 
banda ; and so if the villain say that he is a free man, &c., then 
the sheriff ought not to seize him, but then the lord ought to sue 
a Pone to remove the plea before the justices of the Common 
Pleas, or before the justices in eyre. But if the villain purchase 
a writ de Libertate Probanda before the lord hath sued the 
Pone to remove the plea before the justices, then that writ of 
Lihcrtitte Probanda is a Supersedeas unto the lord, that he 
proceed not upon the writ J\^ativo Habendo till the eyre of the 
justices, and that the lord ought not to seize the villain in the 
meantime." — (Vol. I. p. 70.) 

These authorities arc not merely applicable to the 
general question of freedom ; but they distinctly con- 
template the case of fugitive slaves, and the " suits at 
common law" for their rendition. Blackstone speaks 



144 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

of villains wlio " ran away ; " Hargrave of " fugitive 
villains ; " Comyns of a villain " who flies from his 
lord against his will ; " and Fitzherbert of the proceed- 
ings of the lord " when his villain is run from him." 
The forms, writs, counts, pleadings, and judgments, in 
these suits, are all preserved among the precedents of 
the common law. The writs are known as original 
writs which the party on either side, at the proper 
stag«, could sue out of right without showing cause. 
The writ of Libertate Probanda for a fugitive slave 
was in this form : 

" Libertate Pkobanda. 

"The king to the sheriff, &c. A. and B. her sister, have 
showed unto us, that whereas they are free women, and ready to 
prove then' Hberty, F. claiming then to be his niefs unjustly, 
vexes them ; and therefore we command you, that if the afore- 
said A. and B. shall make you secure touching the proving of 
their liberty, then put that plea before our jvistices at the first 
assizes, when they shall come into those parts, because proof of 
this kind belongeth not to you to take ; and in the meantime 
cause the said A. and B. to have peace thereupon, and tell the 
aforesaid F. that he may be there, if he will, to prosecute his 
plea thereof against the aforesaid A. and B. And have there 
this writ. Witness, &c." — {Fitzherbert, Vol. I. p. 77.) 

By these various proceedings, all ending in Trial by 
Jury, Personal Liberty was guarded, even in the early, 
unrefined, and barbarous days of the common law. 
Any person claimed as a fugitive slave might invoke 
this Trial as a sacred right. Whether the master pro- 
ceeded by seizure, as he might, or by legal process, 
the Trial by Jury in a suit at common law, before one 
of the high courts of the realm, was equally secured. 
In the case of seizure, the fugitive, reserving the pro- 



FREEDOM NxS.TIOXAL ; SLAVEllY SECTIONAL. 145 

ceedings, might instifiite process against his master and 
appeal to a court and jury. In the case of process by 
the master, the watchful law secured to the fugitive the 
same protection. By no urgency of force, by no device 
of process, could any person claimed as a slave be 
defrauded of this Trial. Such was the common law. 
If its early boast, that there could be no slaves in 
England, fails to be true, this at least may be its pride, 
that, according to its indisputable principles, the Lib- 
erty of every man was placed under the guard of Trial 
by Jury. 

These things may seem new to us ; but they must 
have been known to the members of the Convention, 
particularly to those from South Carolina, through 
whose influence the provision on this subject was 
adopted. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Mr. Rut- 
iedge had studied law at the Temple, one of the 
English Inns of Court. It would be a discredit to 
them, and also to other learned lawyers, members of 
the Convention, to suppose that they were not con- 
versant with the principles and precedents directly 
applicable to this subject, all of which are set down in 
works of acknowledged weight, and at that time of 
constant professional study. Only a short time before, 
in the case of Somersett, they had been most elaborately 
examined in "Westminster Hall. In a forensic effort 
of unsurpassed learning and elevation, which of itself 
vindicates for its author his great juridical name, Mr. 
Hargrave had fully made them known to such as were 
little acquainted wth the more ancient sources. But 
even if we coidd suppose them unknown to the lawyers 
of the Convention, they arc none the less applicable in 
determining the true meaning of the Constitution. 
13 



146 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

The conclusion from this examination is explicit. 
Clearly and indisputably, in England, the country of 
the common law, a claim for a fugitive slave was " a 
suit at common law," recognized " among its old and 
settled proceedings." To question this, in the face of 
authentic principles and precedents, would be prepos- 
terous. As well might it be questioned, that a writ 
of replevin for a horse, or a writ of right for land, was 
"a suit at common law." It follows, then, that this 
technical term of the Constitution, read in the illumi- 
nation of the common law, naturally and necessarily 
embraces proceedings for the recovery of fugitive slaves, 
if any such he ijistituted or allowed under the Constitu- 
tion. And thus, by the letter of the Constitution, in 
harmony with the requirements of the common law, all 
such persons, when claimed by their masters, are en- 
titled to a Trial by Jury. 

Such, sir, is the argument, briefly uttered, against 
the constitutionality of the Slave Act. Much more I 
might say on this matter ; much more on the two 
chief grounds of objection which I have occupied. But 
I am admonished to hasten on. 

Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional from a 
want of power in Congress and from a denial of Trial 
by Jury, I find myself again encouraged by the example 
of our Revolutionary Fathers, in a case which is one 
of the landmarks of history. The parallel is important 
and complete In 1765, the British Parliament, by a 
notorious statute, attempted to draw money from the 
colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination 
of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute w^as 
delegated — not to the courts of common law — but to 



FREEDOM NATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIOXAL. 147 

Courts of Admiralty without a jury. The Stamp Act, 
now execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this extent 
and no more. Its passage was the signal for a general 
flame of opposition and indignation throughout the 
Colonies. It was denounced as contrary to the British 
Constitution on two principal grounds ; firsts as a 
usurpation by Parliament of powers not belonging to 
it, and an infraction of rights secured to the Colonics ; 
and secondly^ as a denial of Trial by Jury in certain 
cases of property. 

The public feeling was variously expressed. At 
Boston, on the arrival of the stamps, the shops were 
closed, the bells of the churches tolled, and the flags 
of the ships hung at half-mast. At Portsmouth, in 
New Hampshire, the bells were tolled, and notice 
given to the friends of Liberty to hold themselves in 
readiness to attend her funeral. At New York a letter 
was received from Franklin, then in London, written 
on the day after the passage of the Act, in which he 
said : " The sun of liberty is set." The obnoxious 
Act, headed " Folly of England and Ruin of America," 
was contemptuously hawked through the streets. The 
merchants of Xcw York, inspired then by Liberty, 
resolved to import no more goods from England until 
the repeal of the Act ; and their example was followed 
shortly afterwards by the merchants of Philadelphia 
and Boston. Bodies of patriots were organized every- 
where under the name of " Sons of Liberty." The 
orators also spoke. James Otis with fiery tongue ap- 
pealed to Magna Charta. 

Of all the States, Virginia — whose shield bears the 
image of liberty trampling upon chains — first declared 
herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid thought 



148 rHEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

" treasonable ; " but wbicb soon found a response. 
New York followed. Massacbusetts came next, speak- 
ing by tlie pen of the inflexible Samuel Adams. In 
an Address from the Legislature to the Governor, the 
true grounds of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident 
with the two radical objections to the Slave Act, are 
clearly set forth : 

" You are pleased to say that the Stamp Act is an act of 
Parliament, and as such ought to be observed. This House, sir, 
has too great reverence for the Supreme Legislature of the nation 
to question its just authority. It by no means appertains to us 
to presume to adjust the boundaries of the power of Parliament ; 
but boundaries there undoubtedly are. We hope we may, with- 
out olfence, put your Excellency in mind of that most grievous 
sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced by the Church 
in the name of the sacred Trinity, in the presence of Kiug Henry 
the Third and the estates of the realm, against all those who 
should make statutes or observe them, being made, contrary to 
the liberties of Magna Charta. The Charter of this province 
invests the General Assembly with the power of making laws for 
its internal government and taxation ; and this Charter has 
never been forfeited. The Parliament has a right to make all 
laws within the limits of their own constitution." ... " The 
people complain that the Act vests a single judge of Admiralty 
with the power to try and determine their property in contro- 
versies arising from internal concerns, ivithoul a jury, contrary 
to the very expression of Magna Charta, that no freeman shall 
be amerced, but by the oath of good and lawful men of the 
vicinage." . . . "We deeply regret that the Parliament has 
seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act ; we flatter our- 
selves that the hardships of it will shortly appear to them in 
such a light, as shall induce them in their wisdom to repeal it ; 
in the meantime, we must beg your Kxccllcncy will excuse us 
from doing anything to assist in the execution of it." 

Thus in those days spoke Massachusetts ! The par- 
allel still proceeds. The unconstitutional Stamp Act 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SE'^TIOXAL. 149 

was welcomed in the Colonies by the Tories of that 
day precisely as the unconstitutional Slave Act has 
been welcomed by large and imperious numbers among 
us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant Governor 
and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers in 
England : " The Stamp Act is received with as much 
decency as could be expected. It leaves no room for 
evasion, and will execute itself." Like the judges of 
our day, in charges to grand juries, he resolutely vindi- 
cated the Act, and admonished " the jurors and the 
people " to obey. Like Governors of our day, Bern- 
ard, in his speech to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
demanded unreasoning submission. " I shall not," 
says this British Governor, " enter into any disquisition 
of the policy of this Act. I have only to say it is an 
Act of the Parliament of Great Britain; and I trust 
that the supremacy of that Parliament over all the 
members of their wide and diffused empire never was 
and never ^\ill be denied within these walls." Like 
marshals of our day, the officers of the Customs made 
" application for a military force to assist them in the 
execution of their duty." The military were against 
the people. A British major of artillery at New York 
exclaimed, in tones not unlike those now sometimes 
heard : "I will cram the stamps down their throats 
with the end of my sword." The elaborate answer of 
Massachusetts — a paper of historic grandeur — drawn 
by Samuel Adams, was pronounced " the ravings of a 
parcel of wild enthusiasts." 

Thus in those days spoke the partisans of the Stamp 

Act. But their weakness soon became manifest. In 

the face of an awakened community, where discussion 

has free scope, no men, though surrounded by office 

13* 



150 FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

and wealth, can long sustain injustice. Earth, water, 
nature, they may subdue ; but Truth they cannot sub- 
due. Subtle and mighty, against all efforts and de- 
vices, it fills every region of light with its majestic 
presence. The Stamp Act was. discussed and understood. 
Its violation of constitutional rights was exposed. By 
resolutions of Legislatures and of town meetings, by 
speeches and writings, by public assemblies and pro- 
cessions, the country was rallied in peaceful phalanx 
against the execution of the Act. To this great object, 
within the bounds of law and the constitution, were 
bent all the patriot energies of the land. 

And here Boston took the lead. Her records at this 
time are full of proud memorials. In formal instruc- 
tions to her representatives, adopted unanimously, 
"having been read several times," in Town Meeting 
at Faneuil Hall, the following rule of conduct was 
prescribed : 

" We, therefore, think it our indispensable duty, in Justice to 
ourselves and Posterity, as it is our undoubted Privilege, in the 
most open and uni-eserved, but decent and respectful Terms, to 
declai'e our greatest Dissatisfaction with this Law. And we 
think it incumbent upon you by no Means to Join in any public 
Measures for countenancing and assisting in tJie execution of 
tfic same. But to use your best endeavors in the general Assem- 
bly to have the inhei'ent inalienable Rights of the People of this 
Province asserted, and vindicated, and left ujoon the public rec- 
ord, that Posterity may never have reason to charge the present 
Times with the Guilt of tamely giving them away." 

Virginia responded to Boston. Many of her justices 
of the peace surrendered their commissions " rather 
than aid in the enforcement of the law, or be instru- 
mental in the overthrow of their country's liberties." 

As the opposition deepened, its natural tendency was 



FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 151 

to outbreak and violence. But this was carefully re- 
strained. On one occasion in Boston it showed itself 
in the lawlessness of a mob. But the town, at a pub- 
lic meeting in Faneuil Hall, called without delay on 
the motion of the opponents of the Stamp Act, with 
James Otis as chairman, condemnad the outrage. Eager 
in hostility to the execution of the Act, Boston cher- 
ished municipal order, and constantly discountenanced 
all tumult, violence and illegal proceedings. Her 
equal devotion to these two objects drew the praises 
and congratulations of other towns. In reply, March 
27th, 1766, to an Address from the inhabitants of 
Plymouth, her own consciousness of duty done is thus 
expressed : 

" If the inhabitants of Boston have taken the legal and war- 
rantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the 
most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act, and as a 
necessary means of preventing it, have made any spirited appli- 
cations for opening the custom-houses and courts of justice ; if 
at the same time they have borne their testimony against out- 
rageous tumults and illegal proceedings, and given any example 
of the Love of Peace and good order, next to the consciousness of 
having done their duty is the satisfaction of meeting with the 
approbation of any of their fellow-countrymen." 

Learn now from the Diary of John Adams the results 
of this system : 

" The year 1765 has been the most remarkable year of my life. 
That enormous engine, fabricated by tlie British Parliament, for 
battering down all the rights and Jibei'ties of America — I mean 
the Stamp Act — has raised and spread through the whole con- 
tinent a spirit that will be recorded to our honor with all future 
generations. In every Colony, from Georgia to New Hampshire 
inclusively, the stamp distributors and inspectors have been 
compelled by the unconquerable rage of the people to renounce 



152 FUEEDOM national; slavery sectional. 

their offices. Such and so universal has been the resentment of 
the people, that every man who has dared to speak in favor of 
the stamps, or to soften the detestation in which they are held, 
how great soever his abilities and virtues had been esteemed be- 
fore, or whatever his fortune, connections and influence had 
been, has been seen to sink into universal contempt and ig- 
nominy. ' ' 

The Stamp Act became a dead letter. At the 
meeting of Parliament numerous petitions were pre- 
sented, calling for its instant repeal. Franklin, at that 
time in England, while giving his famous testimony 
before the House of Commons, was asked whether he 
thought the people of America would submit to this 
Act if modified. His brief emphatic response was : 
*' No, never, unless compelled by force of arms." Chat- 
ham yet weak with disease, but mighty in eloquence, 
exclaimed in ever-memorable words : " We are told 
America is obstinate — America is almost in open 
rebellion. Sir, 1 rejoice that America has resisted. 
Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of 
liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would 
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the 
rest. The Americans have been wronged ; they have 
been driven to madness. I Avill beg leave to tell the 
House in a few words that is really my opinion. It is 
that the Stamp Act be repealed, absolutely, totally and 
immediately^ It was repealed. Within less than a 
year from its original passage, denounced and discred- 
ited, it was driven from the Statute Book. In the 
charnel-house of history,' with the unclean things of 
the Past, it now rots. Thither the Slave Act is des- 
tined to follow. 

Sir, regarding the Stamp Act candidly and cautiously, 
free from the animosities of the time, it is impossible 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. lo3 

not to see that, though gravely imconstitutional, it was 
at most an infringement of c/r// liberty only ; not of 
personal liberty. There was an unjust tax of a few 
pence, with the chances of amercements by a single 
judge without a jury ; but, by no provision of tliis 
Act was the personal liberty of any man assailed. 
Under it no freeman could be seized as a slave. Such 
an Act, though justly obnoxious to every lover of Con- 
stitutional Liberty, cannot be viewed mth the feelings 
of repugnance, enkindled by a statute which assails 
the personal liberty of every man, and under which 
any freeman may be seized as a slave. Sir, in placing 
the Stamp Act by the side of the Slave Act, I do in- 
justice to that emanation of British tyranny. Both, 
indeed, infringe important rights ; one of property ; 
the other the vital right of all, which is to other rights 
as the soul to the body — the right of a man to him- 
self. Both are condemned ; but their relative con- 
demnation must be measured by their relative characters. 
As Freedom is more than property ; as Man is above 
the dollar that he earns ; as Heaven, to which we all 
aspire, is higher than the earth, where every accumula- 
tion of wealth must ever remain ; so are the rights 
assailed by an American Congress higher than those 
once assailed by the British Parliament. And just in 
this degree must history condemn the Slave Act more 
than the Stamp Act. 

Sir, I might here stop. It is enough in this place, 
and on this occasion, to show the unconstitutionality 
of this enactment. Your duty commences at once. 
All legislation hostile to the fundamental law of the 
land should be repealed without delay. But the argu- 



154 FKEEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

ment is not yet exhausted. Even if this Act could 
claim any validity or apology under the Constitution, 
which it cannot, it lacks that essential support in the 
Puhlic Conscience of the States, where it is to he 
enforced, which is the life of all law, and without which 
any law must become a dead letter. 

The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Butler) was 
right, when, at the beginning of the session, he point- 
edly said that a law which could be enforced only by 
the bayonet, was no law. Sir, it is idle to suppose 
that an Act of Congress becomes effective, merely by 
compliance with the forms of legislation. Something 
more is necessary. The Act must be in harmony with 
the prevailing public sentiment of the community 
upon which it bears. Of course, I do not suggest that 
the cordial support of every man or of every small 
locality is necessary ; but I do mean that the public 
feelings, the public convictions, the public con- 
science, must not be touched, wounded, lacerated, 
by every endeavor to enforce it. . With all these, it 
must be so far in harmony, that, like other laws, 
by which property, liberty and life are guarded, it 
may be administered by the ordinary process of courts, 
without jeoparding the public peace or shocking good 
men. If this be true as a general rule — if the public 
support and sympathy be essential t% the life of all 
law, — this is especially the case in an enactment which 
concerns the important and sensitive rights of Personal 
Liberty. In conformity with this principle, the Legis- 
lature of Massachusetts, by formal resolution, in 1850, 
with singular unanimity, declared : 

" We hold it to be the duty of Congress to pass such hiws only 
in regard thereto as will be maintained by the sentiments of the 
Tree States, where such laws are to be enforced." 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 155 

The duty of consulting these sentiments was recog- 
nized by Washington. While President of the United 
States, at the close of his Administration, he sought 
to recover a slave who had fled to New Hampshire. 
His autograph letter to Mr. Whipple, the Collector at 
Portsmouth, dated at Philadelphia, 28th November, 
1796, which I now hold in my hand, and which has 
never before seen the light, after describing the fugi- 
tive, and particularly expressing the desire of " her 
mistress," Mrs. Washington, for her return, employs 
the following decisive language : 

*' I do not mean, however, by this request, that such violent 
measures should be used as would excite a mob or riot, which 

MIGHT BE THE CASE IF SHE HAS ADHERENTS, OR EVEN UNEASY SEN- 
SATIONS IN THE MINDS OF AVELL-DisposED CITIZENS. Rather than 
either of these should happen, I would forego her services alto- 
gether ; and the example, also, which is of infinite more impor- 
tance. 

" George Washington." 

Mr. Whipple, in his reply, dated at Portsmouth, 
December 22, 1796, an autograph copy of which I 
have, recognizes the rule of Washington : 

" I will now, sir, agreeably to your desire, send her to Alex- 
andria, if it be practicable without the consequences which you 
except — that of exciting a riot or a mob, or creating uneasy 
sensations in the minds of well-disposed persons. The first can- 
not be calculated beforehand ; it will be governed by the popular 
opinion of the moment, or the circumstances that may arise in 
the transaction. The latter may be sought into and judged of 
by conversing with such persons without discovering the occa^ 
sion. So far as I have had opportunity, I perceive that different 
sentiments are entertained on this subject." 

The fugitive never was returned ; but lived in free- 
dom to a good old age, down to a very recent period. 



156 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYERY SECTIONAL. 

a monument of the just forbearance of him whom we 
aptly call the Father of his Country. It is true that 
he sought her return. This we must regret, and find 
its apology. He was at the time a slaveholder. Though 
often with various degrees of force expressing himself 
against slavery, and promising his suffrage for its aboli- 
tion, he did not see this wrong as he saw it at the close 
of life, in the illumination of another sphere. From 
this act of Washington, still swayed by the policy of 
the world, I appeal to Washington writing his will. 
From Washington on earth I appeal to Washington in 
Heaven. Seek not by his name to justify any such 
effort. His death is above his life. His last testa- 
ment cancels his authority as a slaveholder. However 
he may have appeared before man, he came into the 
presence of God only as the liberator of his slaves. 
Grateful for this example, I am grateful also that, 
while a slaveholder, and seeking the return of a fugi- 
tive, he has left in permanent record a rule of conduct 
which, if adopted by his country, will make Slave- 
Hunting impossible. The chances of a riot, or mob, 
or " even uneasy sensations among well-disposed per- 
sons," are to prevent any such pursuit. 

Sir, the existing Slave Act cannot be enforced with- 
out violating the precept of Washington. Not merely 
" uneasy sensations of Avell-disposed persons," but 
rage, tumult, commotion, mob, riot, violence, death, 
gush from its fatal overflowing fountains ; 

Hoc fonte derivata clades 
In patriam populumque fluxit.* 

Not a case occurs without endangering the public 
* Horace, Carmina, Lib. HI. 6. 



FREEDOM XATIOXAL ; SLAVEllY SECTIONAL. lo7 

l">cacc. "Workmen arc brutally dragged from employ- 
ments to which they are wedded by years of successful 
labor ; husbands are ravished from wives, and parents 
from children. Everywhere there is disturbance ; at 
Detroit, Buffalo, Harrisburg, Syracuse, Philadelphia, 
New York, Boston. At Buffalo the fugitive was 
cruelly knocked by a log of Avood against a red-hot 
stove, and his mock trial commenced while the blood 
still oozed from his wounded head. At Syracuse he 
was rescued by a sudden mob ; so also at Boston. At 
Harrisburg the fugitive was shot ; at Christiana the 
Slave-Hunter was shot. At New York unprecedented 
excitement, always with uncertain consequences, has 
attended every case. Again at Boston a fugitive, ac- 
cording to the received report, was first basely seized 
under pretext that he was a criminal ; arrested only 
after a deadly struggle ; guarded by officers who acted 
in violation of the laws of the State ; tried in a Court- 
House surrounded by chains contrary to the common 
law ; finally surrendered to Slavery by trampling on 
the criminal process of the State, under an escort in 
violation again of the laws of the State, while the 
pulpits trembled and the whole people, not merely 
" uneasy," but swelling wdth ill-suppressed indignation, 
for the sake of order and tranquillity, without violence 
witnessed the shameful catastrophe. 

With every attempt to administer the Slave Act, it 
constantly becomes more revolting, particularly in its 
influence on the agents it enlists. Pitch cannot be 
touched without defilement, and all who lend them- 
selves to this work seem at once and unconsciously to 
lose the better part of man. The spirit of the law- 
passes into them, as the devils entered the swine. 
14 



158 FREEDOM MATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

Upstart commissioners, tlie mere mushrooms of courts, 
vie and revie with each other. Now by indecent speed, 
now by harshness of manner, now by a denial of evi- 
dence, now by crippling the defence, and now by open 
glaring wrong, they make the odious Act yet more 
odious. Clemency, grace, and justice, die in its pres- 
ence. All this is observed by the world. Not a case 
occurs which does not harrow the souls of good men, 
and bring tears of sympathy to the eyes, also those 
other noble tears which " patriots shed o'er dying 
laws." 

Sir, I shall speak frankly. If there be an exception 
to this feeling, it will be found chiefly with a peculiar 
class. It is a sorry fact that the " mercantile interest," 
in its unpardonable selfishness, twice in English his- 
tory, frowned upon the endeavors to suppress the 
atrocity of Algerine Slavery ; that it sought to baffle 
Wilberforce's great effort for the abolition of the 
African slave trade ; and that, by a sordid compro- 
mise, at the formation of our Constitution, it exempted 
the same detested Heaven-defying traffic from Amer- 
ican judgment. And now representatives of this 
*' interest," forgetful that commerce is the child of 
Freedom, join in hunting the Slave. But the great 
heart of the people recoils from this enactment. It 
palpitates for the fugitive, and rejoices in his escape. 
Sir, I am telling you facts. The literature of the age 
is all on his side. The songs, more potent than laws, 
are for him. The poets, with voices of melody, are for 
Freedom. Who could sing for Slavery ? They who 
make the permanent opinion of the country, who mould 
our youth, whose words, dropped into the soul, are the 
germs of character, supplicate for the Slave. And 



FREEDOM national; slatery sectioxal. loO 

now, sir, behold a new and heavenly ally. .A woman, 
inspired by Christian genius, enters the lists, like an- 
other Joan of Arc, and with marvellous power, sweeps 
the chords of the popular heart. Now molting to 
tears, and now inspiring to rage, her work everywhere 
touches the conscience, and makes the Slave-Hunter 
more hateful. In a brief period, nearly 100,000 copies 
of Uncle Tonls Cabin have been already circulated.* 
But this extraordinary and sudden success — surpass- 
ing all other instances in the records of literature — 
cannot be regarded merely as the triumph of genius. 
Higher far than this, it is the testimony of the people, 
by an unprecedented act, against the Fugitive Slave 
Bill. 

These things I dwell upon as the incentives and 
tokens of an existing public sentiment, which renders 
this Act practically inoperative, except as a tremendous 
engine of terror. Sir, the sentiment is just. Even in 
th3 lands of slavery, the slave-trader is loathed as an 
ignoble character, from whom the countenance is 
turned away ; and can the Slave-Hunter be more re- 
garded while pursuing his prey in a land of Freedom ? 
In early Europe, in barbarous days, while Slavery 
prevailed, a Hunting Master, nach jagender Herr, as 
the Germans called him, was held in aversion. Nor 
was this all. The fugitive was welcomed in the cities, 
and protected against pursuit. Sometimes vengeance 
awaited the Hunter. Down to this day, at Revel, now 
a Russian city, a sword is proudly preserved with 
which a Hunting Baron was beheaded, who, in viola- 

* This was the numbci' at the time of the delivery of this 
speech. But the circulation has gone on indefinitely. 



160 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

tion of the. municipal rights of this place, seized a fugi- 
tive slave. Hostile to this Act as our public sentiment 
may be, it exhibits no trophy like this. The State 
laws of Massachusetts have been violated in the seizure 
of a fugitive slave ; but no sword, like that of Revel, 
now hangs at Boston. 

I have said, sir, that this sentiment is just. And is 
it not ? Every escape from slavery necessarily and in- 
stinctively awakens the regard of all who love Freedom. 
The endeavor, though unsuccessful, reveals corn-age, 
manhood, character. No story is read with more in- 
terest than that of our own Lafayette, when, aided by 
a gallant South Carolinian, in defiance of the despotic 
ordinances of Austria, kindred to our Slave Act, he 
strove to escape from the bondage of Olmutz. Litera- 
ture pauses with exultation over the struggles of Cer- 
vantes, the great Spaniard, while a slave in Algiers, to 
regain the liberty for which he says, in his immortal 
work, " Ave ought to risk life itself. Slavery being the 
greatest evil that can fall to the lot of man." Science, 
in all her manifold triumphs, throbs with pride and 
delight, that Arago, the astronomer and philosopher — 
devoted republican also — was redeemed from bar- 
barous Slavery to become one of her greatest sons. 
Religion rejoices serenely, with joy unspeakable, in the 
final escape of Vincent de Paul. Exposed in the public 
squares of Tunis to the inspection of the traffickers 
in human flesh, this illustrious Frenchman was sub- 
jected to every vilencss of treatment compelled, like a 
horse, to open his mouth, to show his teeth, to trot, to 
run, to exhibit his strength in lifting burthens, and 
then, like a horse, legally sold in market overt. Pass- 
ing from master to master, after a protracted servitude, 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 161 

he achieved his freedom, and regaining France, com- 
menced that resplendent career of charity by which he 
is placed among the great names of Christendom. 
Princes and orators have lavished panegyrics upon this 
fugitive slave ; and the Catholic Church, in homage to 
his extraordinary virtues, has introduced him into the 
company of saints. 

Less by genius or eminent services, than by suffer- 
ings, are the fugitive slaves of our country now com- 
mended. For them every sentiment of humanity is 
aroused : 

" Who could I'efrain 



That had a heart to love, and in that heart 
Courage to make his love kx\own ? " 

Rude and ignorant they may be ; but in their very 
efforts for Freedom, they claim kindred with all that 
is noble in the Past. They are among the heroes of 
our age. Romance has no stories of more thrilling 
interest than theirs. Classical antiquity has preserved 
no examples of adventurous trial more worthy of re- 
nown. Among them are men whose names will be 
treasured in the annals of their race. By their eloquent 
voice they have already done much to make their 
wrongs known, and to secure the respect of the world. 
History will soon lend them her avenging pen. Pro- 
scribed by you during life, they will proscribe you 
through all time. Sir, already judgment is beginning. 
A righteous public sentiment palsies your enactment. 

And now, sir, let us review the field over which we 
have passed. We have seen that any compromise, 
finally closing the discussion of Slavery under the Con- 
U* 



162 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAA^ERY SECTIONAL. 

stitution, is tyrannical, absurd and impotent ; that as 
Slavery can exist only by virtue of jDositive law, and 
as it has no such positive support in the Constitution, 
it cannot exist within the National jurisdiction ; that 
the Constitution nowhere recognizes property in man, 
and that, according to its true interpretation, Freedom 
and not Slavery is national, while Slavery and not 
Freedom is sectional ; that, in this spirit, the National 
Government was first organized under Washington, 
himself an Abolitionist, surrounded by Abolitionists, 
while the whole country, by its Church, its Colleges, 
its Literature, and all its best voices, was united 
against Slavery, and the national flag at that time 
nowhere within the National Territory covered a single 
slave ; still further, that the National Government is a 
Government of delegated powers, and as among these 
there is no power to support Slavery, this institution 
cannot be national, nor can Congress in any way legis- 
late in its behalf ; and, finally, that the establishment 
of this principle is the true way of peace and safety for 
the Republic. Considering next the provision for the 
surrender of fugitives from service, we have seen that 
it was not one of the original compromises of the Con- 
stitution ; that it was introduced tardily and with hesi- 
tation, and adopted with little discussion, and then 
and for a long period after was regarded with compar- 
ative indiff'erence ; that the recent Slave Act, though 
many times unconstitutional, is especially so on two 
grounds — first, as a usurpation by Congress of powers 
not granted by the Constitution, and an infraction of 
rights secured to the States ; and secondly, as a denial 
of Trial by Jury, in a c[ucstion of Personal Liberty 
and a suit at common law ; that its glaring unconstitu- 



PREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 



1G3 



tionality finds a prototype in the British Stamp Act, 
which our fathers refused to obey as unconstitutional 
on two parallel grounds — Jirst^ because it was a usur- 
pation by Parliament of powers not belonging to it 
under the British Constitution, and an infraction of 
rights belonging to the Colonies ; and secondly, because 
it was a denial of Trial by Jury in certain cases of 
property ; that as Liberty is far above property, so is 
the outrage perpetrated by the American Congress far 
above that perpetrated by the British Parliament ; and, 
finally, that the Slave Act has not that support in the 
public sentiment of the States where it is to be exe- 
cuted, which is the life of all law, and which prudence 
and the precept of Washington require. 

Su', thus far I have arrayed the objections to this 
Act, and the false interpretations out of Avliich it has 
sprung. But I am asked what I offer as a substitute 
for the legislation which I denounce. Freely I will 
answer. It is to be found in a correct appreciation of 
the provision of the Constitution, under which this dis- 
cussion occurs. Look at it in the double light of 
reason and of Freedom, and we cannot mistake the 
exact extent of its requirements. Here is the pro- 
vision : 

" Xo pecson held to service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom 
such service or labor may be due." 

From the very language employed, it is obvious that 
this is merely a compact between the States, with a 
'prohibition on the States, conferring no power on the 



164 FREEDOM IN-ATIONAL ; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 

nation. In its natural signification it is a compact. 
According to the examples of other countries, and 
the principles of jurisprudence, it is a compact. All 
arrangements for the extradition of fugitives have been 
customarily compacts. Except under the express obli- 
gations of treaty, no nation is bound to surrender 
fugitives. Especially has this been the case with 
fugitives for Freedom. In mediaeval Europe, cities 
refused to recognize this obligation in favor of persons 
even under the same National Government. In 1531, 
vrhile the Netherlands and Spain were united under 
Charles V., the Supreme Council of Mechlin rejected an 
application from Spain for the surrender of a fugitive 
slave. By express compact alone could this be secured. 
But the provision of the Constitution was borrowed 
from the Ordinance of the Northwestern Territory, 
which is expressly declared to be a compact; and this 
Ordinance, finally drawn by Nathan Dane, was again 
borrowed in its distinctive features from the early 
institutions of Massachusetts, among Avhich, as far 
back as 1643, was a compact of like nature with other 
New England States. Thus this provision is a com- 
pact in language, in nature, in its whole history ; as 
we have already seen it is a compact, according to 
the intentions of our Fathers and the genius of our 
institutions. 

As a compact, its execution depends absolutely upon 
the States, without any intervention of the Nation. 
Each State, in the exercise of its own judgment, will 
determine for itself the precise extent of the obligations 
assumed. As a compact in derogation of Freedom, it 
must be construed strictly in every respect — leaning 
always in favor of Freedom, and shunning any mean- 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 165 

ing, not clearly necessary, which takes away important 
personal rights ; mindful that the parties to whom it is 
applicable are regarded as " persons," of course with 
all the rights of *' persons " under the Constitution ; 
especially mindful of the vigorous maxim of the com- 
mon law, that " he is cruel and impious who does not 
always favor Freedom; " and also, completely adopting 
in letter and in spirit, as becomes a just people, the 
rule of the great Commentator, that " the law is 
always ready to catch at anything in favor of Lib- 
erty." With this key the true interpretation is natural 
and easy. 

Briefly, the States are prohibited from any " law or 
regulation" by which any "person" escaped from 
"service or labor" may be discharged therefrom, and 
on establishment of the claim to such " service or 
labor," he is to be " delivered up." But the mode by 
which the claim is to be tried and determined is not 
specified. All this is obviously within the control of 
each State. It may be done by virtue of express 
legislation, in which event any Legislature, justly care- 
fid of Personal Liberty, would surround the fugitive 
with every shield of the law^ and Constitution. I^ut 
here a fact, pregnant with Freedom, must be studiously 
observed. The name Slave — that litany of wrong 
and woe — does not appear in the clause. Here is no 
unambiguous phrase, incapable of a double sense ; no 
" positive " language, applicable only to slaves, and 
excluding all other classes ; no word of that absolute 
certainty in every particular, which forbids any inter- 
pretation except that of Slavery, and makes it impossi- 
ble " to catch at anything in favor of Liberty." Nothing 
of this kind is here. But passing from this ; " cruelly 



166 FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAYERY SECTIONAL. 

and impiously" renouncing for the moment all leanings 
for Freedom ; refusing " to catch at anything in favor of 
Liberty ; " abandoning the cherished idea of the Fathers, 
that " It was wrong to admit in the Constitution the 
idea of property in man ; " and, in the face of these com- 
manding principles, assuming two things, first, that, in 
the evasive language of this clause, the Convention, 
whatever may have been the aim of individual mem- 
bers, really intended fugitive slaves, which is sometimes 
questioned, and, secondly, that, if they so intended, 
the language employed can be judicially regarded as 
justly applicable to fugitive slaves, which is often and 
earnestly denied ; then the whole proceeding, without 
any express legislation, may be left to the ancient and 
authentic forms of the common law, familiar to the 
framers of the Constitution and ample for the occasion. 
If the fugitive be seized without process, he Avill be 
entitled at once to his writ de Homine Rcplegiando, 
while the master, resorting to process, may find his 
remedy in the writ de Nativo Hahendo — each Avrit 
requiring Trial by Jury. If, from ignorance or lack of 
employment, these processes have slumbered in our 
country, still they belong to the great arsenal of the 
common law, and continue, like other ancient writs, 
tanquam gladium in vagina, ready to be employed at 
the first necessity. They belong to the safeguards of 
the citizen. But in any event and in either alternative 
the proceedings would be by " suit at common law," 
with Trial by Jury ; and it would be the solemn duty 
of the court, according to all the forms and proper 
delays of the common law, to try the case on the 
evidence ; strictly to apply all the protecting rules of 
evidence, and especially to require stringent proof, by 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 167 

competent witnesses under cross-examination, that the 
person claimed was held to service ; that his service 
was due to the claimant ; that he had escaped from the 
State where such service was due ; and also proof of 
the laws of the State under which he was held. Still 
further^ to the Courts of each State must belong the 
determination of the question, to what classes of persons, 
according to just rules of interpretation, the phrase 
^^ persons held to service or labor" is strictly appli- 
cable. 

Such is this much- debated provision. The Slave 
States, at the formation of the Constitution, did not 
propose, as in the cases of Naturalization and Bank- 
ruptcy, to empower the National Government to estab- 
lish an uniform rule fur the rendition of fugitives from 
service, throughout the United States ; they did not ask 
the National Government to charge itself in any way 
with this service ; they did not venture to offend the 
country, and particularly the Northern States, by any 
such assertion of a hateful right. They were content, 
under the sanctions of compact, to leave it to the pub- 
lic sentiment of the States. There, I insist, it shall 
remain. 

Mr. President, I have occupied much time ; but the 
great subject still stretches before us. One other point 
yet remains, which I should not leave untouched, and 
which justly belongs to the close. The Slave Act 
violates the Constitution and shocks the Public Con- 
science. With modesty and yet with firmness let me 
add, sir, it offends against the Divine Law. No such 
enactment can be entitled to support. As the throne 
of God is above every earthly throne, so are his laws 



168 FKEEDOM national; slavery sectional. 

and statutes above all tlie laws and statutes of man. 
To question these, is to question God himself. But to 
assume that human laws are beyond question, is to 
claim for their fallible authors infallibility. To assume 
that they are always in conformity with the laws of God, 
is presumptuously and impiously to exalt man to an 
equality with God. Clearly human laws are not always 
in such conformity ; nor can they ever be beyond' 
question from each individual. Where the conflict is 
open, as if Congress should command the perpetration 
of murder, the office of conscience as final arbiter is 
undisputed. But in every conflict the same Queenly 
office is hers. By no earthly power can she be de- 
throned. Each person, after anxious examination, 
without haste, without passion, solemnly for himself 
must decide this great controversy. Any other rule 
attributes infallibility to human laws, places them 
beyond question, and degrades all men to an unthink- 
ing passive obedience. 

According to St. Augustine, an unjust law does not 
appear to be a law ; lex esse non videtur qua; justa non 
fuerit ; and the great fathers of the Church, while 
adopting these words, declare openly that unjust laws 
are not binding. Sometimes they are called "abuses," 
and not laws; sometimes "violences," and not laws. 
And here again the conscience of each person is the 
final arbiter. But tliis lofty principle is not confined 
to the Church. A master of philosophy in early 
Europe, a name of intellectual renown, the eloquent 
Abelard, in Latin verses addressed to his son, has 
olearly expressed the universal injunction : 

• Jussa potestatis terrenae discutienda 
Coelestis tibi mox perficienda scias. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL ; SLAVEllY SECTIONAL. 1G9 

Siquis divinis juheat contraria jussis 

Te contra Dominum pactio nulla trahat." 

The mandates of an earthly power arc to be discussed ; 
those of Heaven must at once be performed ; nor can 
any agreement constrain us against God. Such is the 
rule of morals. Such, also, by the lips of judges and 
sages, has been the proud declaration of the English 
law, whence our own is derived. In this conviction 
patriots have fearlessly braved unjust commands, and 
martyrs have died. 

And now, sir, the rule is commended to us. The 
good citizen, as he thinks of the shivering fugitive, — 
guilty of no crime, — pursued, — hunted down like a 
beast, while praying for Christian help and deliverance, 
and as he reads the requirements of this Act, is filled 
■with horror. Here is a despotic mandate, " to aid and 
assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this 
law." Again let me speak frankly. Not rashly would 
I set myself against any provision of law. This grave 
responsibility I would not lightly assume. But here 
the path of duty is clear. By the Supreme Law, which 
commands me to do no injustice ; by the comprehen- 
sive Christian Law of Brotherhood ; hy the Constitution, 
which I have sworn to support ; I am bound to dis- 
obey THIS act. Never, in any capacity, can I render 
voluntary aid in its execution. Pains and penalties I 
will endure ; but this great ^^Tong I ^^^I1 not do. " I 
cannot obey ; but I can suffer,*' was the exclamation 
of the author of Pilgrim's Progress, when imprisoned 
for disobedience to an earthly statute. Better suffer 
injustice than do it. Better be the victim than the 
instrument of wrong. Better be even the poor slave, 
15 



170 FREEDOM national; slayery sectional, s 

returned to bondage, than the unhappy Commis- 
sioner. 

There is, sir, an incident of history, which suggests 
a parallel, and affords a lesson of fidelity. Under 
the triumphant exertions of that Apostolic Jesuit, 
St. Francis Xavier, large numbers of the Japanese, 
amounting to as many as two hundred thousand — 
among them princes, generals, and the flower of the 
nobility — were converted to Christianity. Afterwards, 
amidst the frenzy of civil war, religious persecution 
arose, and the penalty of death was denounced against 
all who refused to trample upon the efligy of the 
Redeemer. This was the Pagan law of a Pagan land. 
But the delighted historian records that scarcely one 
from the multitude of converts was guilty of this 
apostacy. The law of man was set at naught. Im- 
prisonment, torture, death, were preferred. Thus did 
this people refuse to trample on the painted image. 
Sir, multitudes among us will not be less steadfast 
in refusing to trample on the living image of their 
Redeemer. 

Finally, sir, for the sake of peace and tranquillity, 
cease to shock the Public Conscience; for the sake of 
the Constitution, cease to exercise a power which is 
nowhere granted, and which violates inviolable rights 
expressly secured. Leave this question where it was 
left by our fathers, at the formation of our National 
Government, in the absolute control of the States, the 
appointed guardians of Personal Liberty. Repeal this 
enactment. Let its terrors no longer rage through 
the land. Mindful of the lowly whom it pursues ; 
mindful of the good men perplexed by its require- 
ments ; in the name of charity, in the name of the 



FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 171 

Constitution, repeal this enactment, totally and without 
delay. Be inspired by the example of Washington. 
Be admonished by those words of Oriental piety — 
" Beware of the groans of the wounded souls. Oppress 
not to the utmost a single heart ; for a solitary sicrh 
has power to overset a whole world." 



TRIBUTE TO MR. DOWNING. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 26tH AUGUST, 1852, 
IN FAVOR OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE WIDOW OF THE LATE 
ANDREW J. DOWNING. 



The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill being under con- 
sideration, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, under instructions from 
the Committee on Finance, moved the following amendment : 

*' For the payment of the arrears of salai-y due to the late 
Rural Architect, A. J. Downing, from the first of May, 1852, to 
the date of his death, and a further allowance to his widow, 
equal to the salary for one year, ^2,500 ; Provided, that the 
said sum shall be in full of all claim for the services of the said 
deceased, and for all models, specifications and drawings de- 
signed for the benefit of the United States, which are not in its 
possession. ' ' 

In the course of the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke 
as follows : 

Mr. Sumnee. — Mr. President: The laborer is 
worthy of his hire ; and I believe at this moment there 
is no question of charity to the widow of the late Mr. 
Downing. The simple proposition is to make com- 
pensation for services rendered to the United States by 
this eminent artist as superintendent of the public 
grounds in Washington. And, since the plans he has 
left behind and the impulses he has given to improve- 
ments here by his incomparable genius will continue to 

(172) 



TRIBUTE TO MR. DOWNING. 173 

benefit us, though he has been removed, it is thought 
reasonable to continue his salary to the close of the 
unexpired year from which it commenced. These plans 
alone have been valued at five thousand dollars, and 
we are to have the advantage of them. In pursuance 
of these, his successor will be able to proceed in ar- 
ranging the public grounds, and in embellishing the 
national capital, without any further expenditure to 
procure others instead. Thus, as I said at the outset, 
it is not a question of charity, but of compensation ; 
and on this ground I submit that the estate of the 
departed artist deserves the small pittance which it is 
proposed to supply. For myself, I should be much 
happier to vote for a larger appropriation, believing 
that, over and above the services actually rendered in 
the discharge of his duties, these plans are amply 
worth it, and that we shall all feel better by such a 
recognition of our debt. 

Few men in the public service have vindicated a 
title to regard above Mr. Downing. At the age of 
thirty-seven he has passed away, " dead ere his prime" 
— like Lycidas, also, " stretched on a watery bier " — 
leaving behind a reputation above that of any other 
citizen in the beautiful department of art to which he 
was devoted. His labors and his example cannot be 
forgotten. I know of no man> among us, in any sphere 
of life, so young as he was at his death, who has been 
able to perform services of such true, simple and last- 
ing beneficence. By his wide and active superintend- 
ence of rural improvements, by his labors of the pen, 
and by the various exercise of his genius, he has 
contributed essentially to the sum of human happiness. 
And now, sir, by practical services here in Washington, 
10* 



174 THIBUTE TO MR. DOWNING. 

rendered at the call of his country, he has earned, it 
seems to me, this small appropriation — not as a 
charity to his desolate widow, but as a compensation 
for labor done. I hope the amendment will be agreed 
to. 



THE PARTY OF FREEDOM; ITS NECESSFIY AND 
PRACTICABILITY. 

SPEECH AT THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE FKEE SOIL PARTY OF 
MASSACHUSETTS, HELD AT LOWELL, IGtH SEPTEMBEK, 1852. 



The President [Hon. Stephen C. Phillips] remarked that 
there was one gentleman present whom the Convention would 
uU delight to hejxr ; he alluded to our distinguished Senator in 
Congress, Hon. Charles Sumner. 

The name of Mr. Sumner was received with " three times 
three " rousing cheers, and the waving of hats, canes, handker- 
chiefs, &c., which demonstrations of regard were renewed as he 
made his appearance on the platform. The enthusiasm having 
in a degree subsided, he stepped forward and said : * 

Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of Mass- 
achusetts: — I should be dull indeed — dull as a 
weed — were I insensible to this generous, overflow- 
ing, heart- speaking welcome. After an absence of 
many months, I have now come home, to breathe anew 
this invigorating Northern air (applause), to tread 
again the free soil of our native Massachusetts (cheers), 
and to enjoy the sympathy of friends and fellow-citizens. 
(Renewed applause.) But, while glad in your greet- 
ings, thus bounteously lavished, I cannot accept them 
for myself. I do not deserve them. They belong to 

♦ This report is copied from the newspapers of the time. 

(170) 



176 THE PARTY OF FREEDOM ; 

the cause (applause) which we all have at heart, and 
which binds us together. (Cheers.) 

Fellow-citizens, I have not come here to-day to make 
a speech. The occasion requires no such effort. Weary 
with other labors, and desiring rest, I have little now 
to say, and that little must not be about myself. If, 
at Washington, during a long session of Congress — 
my own first experience of public life — I have been 
able to do anything which meets your acceptance, I 
am happy. (Cheers.) I have done nothing but my 
duty. (" Hear ! hear ! ") Passing from this, and 
taking advantage of the kind attention with which you 
honor me, let me add one word in vindication of our 
position as a third party. 

At this moment we are on the eve of two important 
elections ; one of national officers and the other of 
State officers. A President and Vice President of the 
United States, and members of Congress are to be 
chosen ; also. Governor and Lieutenant Governor of 
the Commonwealth, and members of the Legislature. 
And at these elections we are to cast our votes so as 
most to promote the cause of Freedom under the 
National Constitution. (Cheers.) Tliis is our peculiar 
object, though associated with it are other aims, kin- 
dred in their humane and liberal character. 

Against Freedom both the old parties are now 
banded. Opposed to each other in the contest for 
power, they concur in opposing every effort for the 
establishment of Freedom under the National Consti- 
tution. (Applause.) Divided as parties, they are one 
as supporters of slavery. On this question we can 
have no sympathy with cither ; but must necessarily be 
against both. (" Hear ! hear ! '') They sustain slavery 



ITS NECESSITY AND rilACTf CABILITY. 177 

in the District of Columbia ; we are against it. They 
sustain the coastwise slave trade under the National 
Flag; we abhor it. (Cheers.) They sustain the policy 
of silence on Slavery in the territories ; we urge the 
voice of positive prohibition. They sustain that paragon 
of legislative monsters — unconstitutional, unchristian 
and infamous, — the Fugitive Slave Bill (sensation) ; 
we insist on its repeal. (Great applause.) They con- 
cede to the Slave Power new life and protection ; Ave 
cannot be content except with its total destruction. 
(Enthusiasm.) Such, fellow-citizens, is the diflference 
between us. 

And now, if here in Massachusetts, there be any 
persons, who, on grounds of policy or conscience, feel 
impelled to support slavery, let them go and sink in 
the embrace of the old parties. (Applause.) There 
they belong. But, on the other hand, all who are 
sincerely opposed to slavery — who desire to act against 
it — who seek to bear their testimony for Freedom, — 
who long to carry into public affairs those principles 
of morality and Christian duty which are the rule 
of private life, — let them come out from both the 
old parties, and join us. (Cheers.) In our third 
party, with the declared friends of Freedom, they wdll 
find a place in harmony with their aspirations. (Enthu- 
siasm.) 

But there is one apology, which is common to the 
supporters of both the old parties, and which is often 
in their mouths when pressed for their inconsistent 
persistence in adhering to these parties. It is dog- 
matically asserted that there can be but two parties ; 
that a third party is impossible, particularly in our 
country, and that, therefore, all persons, however op- 



178 THE PAKTY OV FREEDOM ; 

posed to Slavery, must be content in one of the old 
parties. This assumption, which is without any foun- 
dation in reason, has been so often put forth, that it 
has acquired a certain currency ; and many, who reason 
hastily, or who implicitly follow others, have adopted 
it as the all-sufficient excuse for their conduct. Con- 
fessing their own opposition to slavery, they yet yield 
to the domination of party, and become dumb. All 
this is wrong morally, and, therefore, must be wrong 
practically. 

Party, in its true estate, is the natural expression 
and agency of different forms of opinion on important 
public questions ; and itself assumes different forms 
precisely according to the prevalence of different 
opinions. Thus in the early Italian republics there 
were for a while the factions of the Guelphs and 
Ghibellins, supporters of the Pope and the Emperor ; 
also of the Whites and the Blacks, taking their names 
from the color of their respective badges, and in Eng- 
land, the two factions of the white and red roses, in 
which was involved the succession to the crown. But 
in all these cases the party came into being, died out, 
or changed with the prevailing sentiment. If there be 
in a community only two chief antagonist opinions, 
then there will be but two parties, embodying these 
opinions. But as other opinions practically prevail 
and seek vent, so must parties change or multiply. 
This is so strongly the conclusion of reason and phil- 
osophy, that it could not be doubted, even if there 
were no examples of such change and multiplication. 
But we need only turn to the recent history of France 
and England, the two countries where opinion has had 
the freest scope to find such examples. 



ITS NECESSITY AND PRACTICABILITY. 179 

Thus, for instance, in France — and I dwell on this 
point bccaase I have observed myself, in conversa- 
tion, that it is of practical importance — under Louis 
Phillippe, anterior to the late Republic, there was the 
party of Legitimists, supporters of the old branch of 
Bourbons ; the party of Orleanists, supporters of the 
existing throne ; these two corresponding at the time 
in relative rank and power to our Whigs and Demo- 
crats. But besides these, there was a third party, the 
small hand of republicans^ represented in the legislature 
hy a few persons only, but strong in principles and 
pui'poses, ^Vhich in February, 1848, prevailed over 
both the others. (Applause.) On the establishment 
of the Republic the multiplicity of parties continued 
until, with the freedom of opinion and the freedom of 
the press, all were equally overthrown by Louis Napo- 
leon, and their place supplied by the enforced unity of 
despotism. 

In England, the most important measure of recent 
reform, the abolition of the laws imposing a protective 
duty on corn, was carried only by a third party. 
Neither of the two old parties could be brought to 
adopt this measure and press it to a consummation. 
A powerful public opinion, thus thwarted in the regular 
channel, found an outlet in another party, which was 
neither Whig nor Tory, but which was formed from both 
these parties, and wherein Sir Robert Peel, the great 
Conservative leader, took his place, side by side, in 
honorable coalition, with Mr. Cobden, the great Liberal 
leader. (" Hear ! hear ! '") In this way the Corn Laws 
Avere finally overthrown. The multiplicity of parties 
in England, engendered by this contest, still continues. 
At the general election for the new Parliament which 



180 THE TAKTY OF FKEEDOM ; 

has just taken place, the strict lines of ancient parties 
seemed to be effaced, and many were returned, not as 
Whigs and Tories, but as Protectionists and anti- 
Protectionists. 

Thus, by example in our own day we may confirm 
the principle of political philosophy, that parties must 
naturally adapt themselves in character and number to 
the prevailing public opinion. 

Now at the present time in our country, there exists 
a deep controlling conscientious feeling against Slavery. 
(Cheers.) You and I, sir, and all of us confess it. 
While recognizing the Constitution we desire to do 
everything in our power to relieve ourselves of respon- 
sibility for this terrible wrong. (" Yes ! yes ! ") We 
would vindicate the Constitution and the National 
Government which it has established, from all partici- 
pation in this outrage. (Cheers.) Both the old 
political parties, forgetful of the sentiments of the 
Fathers and of the spirit of the Constitution, not only 
refuse to be in any degree the agents or representa- 
tives of our convictions, but expressly discourage and 
denounce them. Thus baffled in their efforts for utter- 
ance, these convictions naturally seek expression in a 
new agency, the party of Freedom. (Cheers.) Such 
is the party, which, representing the great doctrines of 
Human Rights, as enunciated in our Declaration of 
Independence, and inspired truly by the Democratic 
sentiment, is now assembled here under the name of 
the Free Democracy. (Cheers.) 

The rising public opinion against Slavery cannot 
now flow in the old political channels. It is strangled, 
clogged, and dammed back. But if not through the 
old parties, then over the old parties, (tremendous 



ITS NECESSITY AND PRACTICABILITY. 181 

clieering,) this irresistible current shall find its way. 
(Enthusiasm.) It cannot be permanently stopped. 
If the old parties will not become its organ, they must 
become its victim. (Cheers.) The party of Freedom 
will certainly prevail. (Sensation.) It may be by enter- 
ing into, and possessing one of the old parties, filling 
it with our own strong life ; or it may be by drawing 
from both to itself the good and true who are unwill- 
ing to continue members of any political combination 
when it ceases to represent their convictions. But, in 
one way or the other, its ultimate triumph is sure. 
(Great applause.) Of this let no man doubt. (Re- 
peated cheers.) 

At this moment we are in a minority. At the last 
popular election in Massachusetts, there were twenty- 
eight thousand Free Sellers, forty-three thousand 
Democrats, and sixty-four thousand Whigs. But this 
is no reason for discouragement. According to recent 
estimates, the population of the whole world amounts 
to about eight hundred millions. Of these only two 
hundred and sixty millions are Christians, while the 
remaining five hundred and forty millions are mainly 
jMahometans, Brahmins and Idolaters. Because the 
Christians are in this minority, that is no reason for 
renouncing Christianity and for surrendering to the false 
religions (cheers) ; nor do we doubt that Christianity 
will yet prevail over the whole earth, as the waters 
cover the sea. (" Hear ! hear ! ") The friends of 
Freedom in Massachusetts arc likewise in a minority ; 
but they will not, therefore, renounce Freedom (cheers) ; 
nor surrender to the political ^lahometans and idol- 
aters of Baltimore (" never ! never ! ") ; nor can they 
16 



182 THE PARTY OF FREEDOM; 

doubt that tlieir cause, like Christianity, will yet pre- 
vail. (Enthusiastic cheers.) 

Our cause commends itself. But it is also com- 
mended by our candidates. (Cheers.) In all that 
makes the eminent civilian or the accomplished states- 
man fit for the responsibilities of government, they will 
proudly compare with any of their competitors (ap- 
plause), while they are dear to our hearts as able, well- 
tried, loyal supporters of those vital principles of 
Freedom which we seek to establish imder the Consti- 
tution of the United States. (Applause.) In the 
Senate, Mr. Hale (cheers) is admitted to be foremost 
in aptitude and readiness of debate, whether in the 
general legislation of the country, or in the constant 
and valiant championship of our cause. (Applause.) 
His genial and sun-like nature irradiates the antagon- 
ism of political controversy (cheers), while his active 
and practical mind, richly stored with various experi- 
ence, never fails to render good service. (Great cheer- 
ing.) 

Of Mr. Julian, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency 
("Hear! hear !"), let me say simply that, in ability 
and devotion to our principles, he is a worthy compeer 
of Mr. Hale. To vote for such men will itself be a 
pleasure. But it will be doubly so when we reflect 
that in this way we bear our testimony to a noble 
cause, with which the happiness, welfare and fame of 
our country arc indissolubly connected. (Repeated 
and enthusiastic cheers.) 

With such a cause and such candidates, let no man 
be disheartened. The tempest may blow, but ours is 
a life-boat, which cannot be harmed by wind or wave. 



ITS NECESSITY AND mACTICABILITY. 183 

The genius of Liberty sits at the helm. I hear her 
voice of cheer saying, " Whoso sails with me comes 
to shore." 

Mr. Sunmer resumed his seat amid the heartiest and long 
protracted applause. 



CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 23d FEB- 
UARY, 1853, ON THE PROPOSITION TO CHANGE THE SUPER- 
INTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 



The Army Appropriation Bill being under discussion, Mr. 
Davis, of Massachusetts, moved the following amendment : 

" The Act of Congress, approved August 23, 1842, shall be so 
modified, that the President may, if in his opinion the public 
interest demands it, place over any of the armories a Superin- 
tendent who does not belong to the Army." 

In the course of the debate Mr. Sumner spoke as follows : 

Mr. Sumner. — Mr. President, I do not desire to 
speak upon the general subject of the manufacture of 
arms under the authority of the United States, which 
has been opened in debate by honorable Senators. 
What I have to say will be on the precise question 
before the Senate, and nothing else. That question, 
as I understand it, is on the amendment proposed by 
my colleague [Mr. Davis], according to which the act 
of 1842 is to be so far modified that the President, in 
his discretion, may place over the armories persons not 
of the army — leaving it, therefore to his judgment to 
determine whether the superintendent shall be a mili- 
tary man or a civilian. This is all. 

[184] 



CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 185 

The Senate has been exhorted not to act precip- 
itately ; but the character of this proposition exchides 
all idea of precipitation. We do not determine abso- 
lutely that the system shall be changed, but simply 
that it may be changed in tlic discretion of the Presi- 
dent. This discretion, which naturally will be exer- 
cised only after ample inquiry, stands in the way of all 
precipitation ; and this is my answer to the Senator 
from Illinois [Mr. Shields]. 

Again : it is urged that under a military head, the 
armories are better administered than they would be 
under a civil head, and that the arms are better and 
cheaper made ; and here my friend from South Caro- 
lina, who sits before me [Mr. Butler], dwelt with his 
accustomed glow upon the success with which this 
manufacture has been conducted at the national arm- 
ories, and the extent to which it has been recognized 
in Europe. But, sir, on the precise question now 
before you, the merits of the armories are not involved. 
We do not undertake to judge the military superin- 
tendents or their works. The determination of this 
question is referred to the President; and this is my 
answer to the Senator from South Carolina. 

The objections to this amendment of my colleague, 
then, seem to disappear. But there are two distinct 
arguments in its favor, which, at the present moment, 
do not seem to me susceptible of any answer. 

In the first place, there are complaints against the 
existing system which ought to be heard. A memorial 
from five hundred legal voters of Springfield, now on 
your table, bears testimony to them. liCttcrs addressed 
to myself and others, from persons whose opinions I 
am bound to regard, set them forth sometimes in very 
IG* 



186 CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 

strong language. The administration of the arsenal 
at Springfield is commended by many, but there are 
others who judge it differently. As now conducted, 
it is represented by some to be the seat of oppressive 
conduct, and the occasion of heart-burnings and strife, 
often running into the local politics. In the eyes of 
some, this arsenal is now little better than a sore on 
that beautiful town. Now, on these complaints and 
allegations I express no opinion. I do not affirm their 
truth or their untruth. What I know of the Superin- 
tendent, makes it difficult for me to believe that any 
thing unjust, oppressive, or hard, could proceed from 
him. But the whole case justifies inquiry at least, 
and such will be secured by the proposition now 
before the Senate. This is the smallest thing we 
can do. 

But this proposition is enforced by another consid- 
eration which seems" to me entitled to peculiar weight. 
I have nothing to say now on the general question 
of reducing the army or modifying the existing military 
system. But I do submit confidently that the genius 
of our institutions favors civil life rather than military 
life ; and that, in harmony with this, it is our duty, 
whenever the public interests will permit, to limit and 
restrain the sphere of military influences. This is not 
a military monarchy, where the soldier is supreme, 
but a republic, where the soldier yields to the civilian. 
But the law, as it now stands, gives to the soldier an 
absolute preference in a service which is not military, 
and which from its nature, seems to belong to civil 
life. Now the manufacture of arms is a mechanical 
pursuit, and for myself, I can see no reason why it 
should not be placed in charge of one bred to the 



CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. 187 

business. Among the intelligent mechanics of INIassa- 
chusetts, there arc many fully fit to be at the head of 
the arsenal at Springfield ; but all these, by the ex- 
isting law, are austerely excluded from any such trust. 
The idea which has fallen from so many Senators, that 
the superintendent of an armory ought to be a military 
man — that a military man only is competent — or 
even that a military man is more competent than a 
civilian, seems to me as illogical as the jocular fallacy 
of Dr. Johnson, that " He who drives fat oxen must 
himself be fat." 



AGAINST SECRECY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF 
THE SENATE. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 6tH APRIL, 
1853, ON THE PROPOSITION TO LIMIT THE SECRET SESSIONS 
OF THE SENATE. 



The following resolution was submitted by Mr. Chase, of 
Ohio : — 

" Resolved, That the sessions and all proceedings of the 
Senate shall be public and open, except when matters commu- 
nicated in confidence by the President, shall be received and 
considered, and in such other cases as the Senate by resolution 
from time to time shall specially order, and so much of the 38th, 
39th and 40th rules as may be inconsistent with this resolution 
is hereby rescinded." 

In the debate which ensued, INIr. Sumner spoke as follows : 

Mr. Sumner. — Party allusions and party consid- 
erations have been brought to bear upon this question. 
I wish to regard it for a moment in the light of the 
Constitution and in the spirit of our institutions. In the 
Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any 
of the proceedings of the Senate ; nor is there any 
requirement of publicity. To the Senate is left abso- 
lutely the determination of its rules of proceedings. 
In thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter 
the framcrs of the Constitution have obviously regarded 

[188] 



AGAINST SECRECY IN THE SENATE. 189 

it as in all respects witHn tlie discretion of the Senate, 
to be exercised from time to time as it thinks best. 

The Senate exercises three important functions : 
Jirst^ the legislative or parliamentary power, wherein 
it acts concurrently with the House of Representatives, 
as well as the President ; secondly, the power *' to 
advise and consent" to treaties Avith foreign countries 
in concurrence with the President ; and, thirdly, the 
power " to advise and consent" to nominations by the 
President to- offices under the Constitution. I say 
nothing of another, rarely called into exercise, the 
sole power to try impeachments. 

At the first organization of the Government the 
proceedings of the Senate, whether in legislation or on 
treaties or on nominations, were with closed doors. 
In this respect the legislative business and executive 
business were conducted alike. This continued down 
to the second session of the Third Congress, in 1794, 
when, in pursuance of a formal resolution, the galleries 
were allowed to be opened so long as the Senate were 
engaged in their legislative capacity, unless in such 
cases as might, in the opinion of the Senate, require 
secrecy ; and this rule has continued ever since. Here 
was an exercise of the discretion of the Senate, in 
obvious harmony with public sentiment and the spirit 
of our institutions. 

The change now proposed goes still further. It 
opens the doors on all occasions, whether legislative 
or executive, except when specially ordered otherwise. 
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] says 
that the Senate is a confidential body, and should be 
ready to receive confidential communications from the 
President. But this will still be the case if we adopt 



190 AGAINST SECEECY IN THE SENATE. 

the resolution now under consideration. The limita- 
tion proposed seems adequate to all exigencies, while 
the general rule will be publicity. The Executive 
sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public 
gaze and public criticism, constitute an exceptional 
part of our system, too much in harmony with the 
proceedings of other Governments less liberal in char- 
acter. The genius of our institutions requires publicity. 
The ancient Roman, who bade his architect so to con- 
struct his house that his guests and all that he did 
could be seen by the world, is a fit model for the 
American people. 



THE POWERS OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. 

SPEECHES OX THE MILITIA GENERALLY AND A COLORED MILITIA, 
IN THE CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTI- 
TUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS* 21ST AND 22d JUNE, 1853. 



The propositions of amendment on the general subject of the 
Militia being under consideration in Committee of the "Whole, 
Mr. Sumner -spoke as follows : 

I SHOULD like to call the attention of the Committee 
to the precise question on which we are to vote. This 
does not, as it seems to me, properly open the discus- 
sion to Avhich we have been listening. I do not under- 
stand that it involves the topics introduced by my 
friend opposite [Mr. Wilson], — the present condi- 
tion of Europe, the prospects of the liberal cause in 
that quarter of the globe, or the extent to which that 
cause may be affected by a contemporaneous movement 
for peace. Xor do I understand that the important 
considerations introduced by the gentleman on my 
right [Mr. Whitney, of Boylston], on the extent to 
which Government may be entrusted with the power 

* The members of this Convention were not required to liave 
their domicil in the places ■which they represented. Mr. Sumner 
sat as the member for Marshfield, fur ■which place he ■VNas chosen 
•while absent from the State. 

[191] 



192 POWERS OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 

of tlie sword, can materially influence our decision. I 
put these things aside at this time. 

The question is on the final passage of the fifteen 
resolutions reported by the Committee on the Mihtia ; 
and here let me catch and adopt one word from my 
friend opposite [Mr. Wilson]. He regretted, if I 
understood him, that this whole subject was not com- 
pressed into one or two resolutions. Am I right ? 

Mr. WiLSOx. The gentleman is correct. 

Mr. Sumner. I agree with him. I regret that it 
was not compressed into one or two resolutions. I 
object to these resolutions for several reasons. In the 
first place, there are too many. In the second place, 
at least two of them seem to be an assumption of 
power belonging to Congress, and, therefore, at least,' 
of doubtful constitutionality ; and in the third place, 
because twelve of them undertake to control matters 
which it were better to leave to the Legislature. 

On the formation of the Constitution of Massachu- 
setts, in 1780, it was natural that our fathers should 
introduce into it details with regard to the militia and 
its organization. The Constitution of the United States 
had not then been made. But since the establish- 
ment of this Constitution, the whole condition of the 
militia is changed. Among the powers expressly given 
to Congress, is the power " to provide for organizing, 
arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing 
such part of them as may be employed in the service 
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively 
the appointment of the officers and the authority of 
training the militia, according to the discipline pre- 
scribed by Congress." And Congress have proceeded 
to exercise this power by the organization of a national 



POWERS OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 193 

militia. I submit that whatever might have been the 
original inducements to introduce multiform provisions 
on tliis subject into the Constitution of Massachusetts, 
none such exist at this day ; and it is impolitic, at 
least, to introduce them. 

But I fear that they are more than impolitic. I will 
not argue here the question of constitutional law ; but 
I submit to the better judgment of my professional 
brethren — and I am happy to see some of them 
lingering at this late hour — that any attempt on the 
part of the State to interfere, in any way, by addition 
or subtraction, with the organization of the national 
militia, is an experiment which we should not introduce 
into the permanent text of our organic law. If the 
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States 
on the powers of Congress are to prevail, then, it 
seems to me, any such assumption, in a case where the 
original power of Congress is clear, will be unconstitu- 
tional and void. In the famous case of Prigg v. 
Pennsylvania, after an elaborate discussion at the bar, 
all State legislation on the subject of fugitive slaves 
was declared to be unconstitutional and void, while 
Congress was recognized as the sole depository of 
power on this subject. According to my recollection, 
it was expressly held, that the legislation by Congress 
excluded all State legislation on the same subject, 
whether to control, qualify or superadd to the remedy 
enacted by Congress. I commend gentlemen, who 
are now so swift to introduce these provisions into our 
Constitution, to the study of this precedent. It is 
comparatively recent ; and the principle of interpreta- 
tion which it establishes is applicable to State laws on 
the militia, even though entii'ely inapplicable to State 
17 



194 POWERS OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. 

laws on fugitive slaves ; for tlie simple reason tliat in 
tlie former case the original pov/er of Congress is clear, 
while in the latter it is denied. 

But the States are not without power over the 
militia. In the very grant to- Congress is a reser- 
vation to them as follows : " reserving to the States 
respectively the appointment of the officers and the 
authority of training the militia, according to the dis- 
cipline prescribed by Congress." And here is precisely 
what the States can do. They may appoint the officers 
and train the militia. 

Now, sir, the first two resolutions before us transcend 
the powers of the State. They touch the enrolment 
and organization of the militia, and on this account are 
an assumption of power, forbidden by the principle to 
which I have referred. The other thirteen resolutions, 
with the exception of the seventh, are in the nature of 
a military code, concerning the choice of officers, all 
of which should be left to the action of the Legis- 
lature. 

In conformity with these views, Mr. Chairman, and 
in the hope of presenting a proposition on which the 
Convention may unite, I propose to strike out all after 
the preamble and insert two resolutions, as follows : 

Art. 1. The Governor shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the 
Army and Navy of the State, and the Militia thereof, excepting 
when these forces shall be actually in the service of the United 
States ; and shall have power to call out the same to aid in the 
execution of the laws, to suppress insurrection, and to repel 
invasion. 

Art. 2. The appointment of officers and the training of the 
Militia shall be regulated in such manner as may hereafter be 
deemed expedient by the Legislature, and all persons, who from 
scruples oi' conscience, shall be averse to bearing arms shall be 



POWERS OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 195 

excused on such conditions as shall hereafter be prescribed by 
law. 

The first of these resolutions is identical with the 
seventh resolution of the Committee. The second pro- 
vides for the exercise, by the Legislature, of the powers 
expressly reserved to the States, over the appointment 
of officers and the training of the militia ; and taking 
advantage of the Act of Congress, which allows the 
States to determine who shall be exempted from mili- 
tary duty, it plants in the text of the Constitution a 
clause by which this immunity is secured to all persons, 
who, from scruples of conscience, shall be averse to 
bearing arms. I believe we cannot go far beyond 
these without doing too much, while these seem to me 
to be enough. I send the resolutions to the Chair, 
and leave the Convention to dispose of them as they 
think proper. 

On the next day, 22d June, the foUomng resolution 'raa 
brought forward by Mr. Wilson : 

Resolved, That no distinction shall ever be made in the organ- 
ization of the volunteer militia of the Commonwealth on account 
of color or race. 

On this proposition Mr. Sumner spoke as follows : 

I have a suggestion to make to my friend opposite 
[Mr. Wilson], in regard to the form of his proposition, 
which, if he will accept it, will, as it seems to me, ab- 
solutely remove his proposition from the criticism of 
my most eloquent friend before me []\Ir. Choate], 
and from the criticism of other gentlemen who have 
addressed the Convention. I suggest to him to strike 
out the word " militia," and substitute therefor the 



196 POWERS OF A STATE OYEK THE MILITIA. 

words, " military companies," so that his proposition 
will read " that in the organization of the volunteer 
military companies of the Commonwealth there shall 
be no distinction of color or race." 

Mr. Wilson. I accept the suggestion, and will 
amend my proposition accordingly. 

Mr. SuMNEK. Now that proposition, as amended, 
I submit, is absolutely consistent with the Constitution 
of the United States, and, I believe, in conformity with 
the public sentiment of Massachusetts. 

A brief inquiry will show that it is consistent with 
the Constitution of the United States, and in no respect 
interferes with the organization of the National Militia. 
That Constitution provides for organizing, arming and 
disciplining a militia, and gives Congress full power 
over the subject — in which particular, be it observed, 
it is clearly distinguishable from that of fugitive slaves, 
over whom no such power is given. To be more ex- 
plicit, I will read the clause. It is found in the long 
list of enumerated powers of Congress, and is as fol- 
lows : — " Congress shall have power to provide for 
organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and of 
governing such part of them as may be employed in the 
service of the United States, reserving to the States 
respectively the appointment of the officers, and the 
authority of training the militia, according to the dis- 
cipline prescribed by Congress." And then at the 
close of the section it is further declared " that Congress 
shall make all laics wliicli shall he necessary and jrroper 
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." 

In pursuance of this power, Congress have proceeded 
by various laws, " to provide for organizing, arming 
and disciplining the militia, and for governing such 



POWEES OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. 197 

part of them as may be engaged in the service of the 
United States." The earliest of these laws, which is 
still in force, is entitled, " An act more effectually to 
provide for the national defence, by establishing an 
U7iiform militia throughout the United States." [Act 
of May 8th, 1792, ch. 33.] This has been followed 
by several acts in addition thereto. Congress, then, 
have undertaken to exercise the power of "organizing" 
the militia under the Goilstitution. 

And here the question arisen, to what extent, if any, 
this power, when already exercised by Congress, is ex- 
clusive in its character. Among the powders delegated 
to Congress, there may be some which are not for the 
time being exercised. For instance, there is the power 
" to fix the standard of weights and measures." Prac- 
tically this has never been exercised by Congress ; but 
it has been left to each State within its own jurisdic- 
tion. On the other hand, there is a power belonging 
to the same group, " to establish uniform laws on the 
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States," 
which, when exercised by Congress, has been held so 
far exclusive, as to avoid at once all the bankrupt and 
insolvent laws of the several States. 

Sir, I might go over all the powers of Congress, and 
find constant illustration of the subject. For instance, 
there is the power " to establish an uniform rule of 
naturalization," on which Chief Justice Marshall once 
remarked : — " That the power of naturalization is 
exclusively in Congress, does not seem to be, and cer- 
tainly ought not to be controverted." There is the 
power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations and 
among the several States," which was early declared 
by the Supreme Court, to be exclusive, so as to prevent 
17* 



198 POWEES OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 

the exercise of any part of it by tlie States. There is 
the power over patents and copyrights, which has also 
been regarded as exclusive. So, also, is the power 
" to define and pnnish piracies and felonies, committed 
on the high seas, and offences against the law of 
nations." So, also, is still another power, viz : "to 
establish post-ofRces and post-roads. All of these 
powers, as in the c^e of the power over the National 
Militia, have been exercised by Congress, and even if 
not absolutely exclusive in their original character, 
have become so by the exercise. 

Now, sir, upon what ground do gentleman make 
any discrimination in the case of the power over the 
National Militia ? I know of no ground which seems 
to be tenable. It is natural that the States should 
desire to exercise this power, since it was so important 
to them before the Union ; but I do not see how any 
discrimination can be maintained at the present time. 
Whatever may have been the original importance of 
the militia to each State, yet when the Constitution of 
the United States was formed, and Congress exercised 
the power delegated to it over this subject, the militia 
of the several States was absorbed into one uniform 
body, organized, armed and disciplined as the National 
Militia. To the States respectively was left, according 
to the express language of the Constitution, " the 
appointment of the officers and the authority of train- 
ing the militia, according to the discipline prescribed 
by Congress." To this we may add the implied power 
of " governing " them when in the service of the State. 
This is all. The distinct specification of certain powers, 
as reserved to the States, seems to exclude them from 
the exercise of all others, which are not specified or 



POWERS OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 199 

clearly implied. In otlier words, they are excluded 
from all power over the " organizing, arming, and dis- 
ciplining the militia," at least after Congress have 
undertaken to enact laws for this purpose. 

The history of the adoption of the several parts of 
this clause in the Federal Convention reflects light 
upon its true meaning. The first part, in regard to 
organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, was 
passed by a vote of nine States against two ; the next, 
referring the appointment of officers to the States, after 
an ineffectual attempt to amend it by confining the 
appointment to officers under the rank of general offi- 
cers, was passed without a division ; and the last, re- 
serving to the States the authority to train the militia, 
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, 
was passed by a vote of seven States against four. 
It seems, then, that there was a strong opposition in 
the Convention, even to the express reservation to the 
States of " the authority of training the militia." But 
this power is not reserved unqualifiedly. The States 
are to train the militia " according to the discipline 
prescribed by Congress ; " not according to any dis- 
cipline determined by the States, or by the States con- 
currently with the General Government ; but abso- 
lutely according to the discipline prescrihed hy 
Congress ; nor more, nor less ; thus distinctly recog- 
nizing the exclusive character of the legislation of 
Congress on this subject. 

This interpretation derives confirmation from the 
manner in which the militia of England was constituted 
or organized at the time of the adoption of the Federal 
Constitution. To the crown was given the " sole 
right to govern and command them," though they 



200 POWERS OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. 

were " officered " by tlie Lord Lieutenant of the 
county, the Deputy Lieutenant, and other principal 
landholders of the county. The commentaries of Sir 
William Blackstone, from which this description is 
drawn, were familiar to the members of the Conven- 
tion ; and it is reasonable to suppose that in the dis- 
tribution of powers between the General Government 
and the States, on this subject, the peculiar arrange- 
ment which prevailed in the mother country was not 
disregarded. 

If it should be said that the adoption of this con- 
clusion would affect the character of many laws en- 
acted by States, and thus far recognized as ancillary to 
the National Militia, it may be replied, that the possi- 
bility of these consequences cannot justly influence 
our conclusions on a question which must be deter- 
mined by acknowledged principles of constitutional 
law. In obedience to these same principles, the 
Supreme Court, in the case of Prigg v. Pemisyhania^ 
after asserting a power over fugitive slaves, which I 
cannot admit, has proceeded to annul a large num- 
ber of statutes in different States. Mr. Justice 
Wayne in this case said : " That the legislation by 
Congress upon the provision, as the supreme law 
of the land, excludes all State legislation upon the 
same subject ; and that no State can pass any law or 
regulation, or interpose such as may have been a law 
or regulation when the Constitution of the United 
States has ratified to superadd to, control, qualify, or 
impede a remedy enacted by Congress for the delivery 
of fugitive slaves to the parties to whom their service 
or labor is due." Without the sanction of any express 
words in the Constitution, and chiefly, if not solely, im- 



POWERS OF A STATE OVER THE MILITIA. 201 

pressed by tlie importance of consulting " unity of pur- 
pose or uniformity of operation" in the legislation 
with regard to fugitive slaves, the Court has assumed a 
power over this subject, and then, as a natural incident 
to this assumption, it has excluded the States from all 
sovereignty in the premises. 

Now, if this rule be applicable to the pretended 
power over fugitive slaves, it is more applicable to 
the power over the militia which nobody questions. 
Besides, I know of no power which so absolutely re- 
quires what has been regarded as an important crite- 
rion, " unity of purpose or uniformity of operation," 
as that over the militia. No uniform military organi- 
zation can spring from opposite or inharmonious sys- 
tems, and all systems proceeding from different sources 
are liable to be opposite or inharmonious. 

Now, sir, let us apply this reasoning to the matter 
in hand, that we may arrive at a just conclusion. 
In Massachusetts, there exists, and has for a long 
time existed, an anomalous system, familiarly and 
loosely described as the Volunteer Militia, not com- 
posed absolutely of those enrolled imder the laws of 
the United States, but a smaller, more select and 
peculiar body. Now it cannot be doubted that the 
State, by virtue of its police powers within its own 
borders, has power to constitute or organize a body of 
volunteers^ to aid in enforcing its laws. But it does 
not follow that it has power to constitute or organize 
a body of volunteers, who shall be regarded as a part 
of the National Militia. And, sir, I make bold to say 
that the volunteer militia — I prefer to call it the 
volunteer military companies — cannot be regarded as 
a part of the National Militia. It is no part of that 



202 POWERS OF A STATE OYER THE MILITIA. 

uniform militia which it was the object of the early- 
Act of Congress to organize. It may appear to be a 
part of this system — it may affect to be, but I submit, 
it is a mistake to suppose that it is so in any just con- 
stitutional sense. 

As a local system, disconnected from the national 
militia, and not in any way constrained by its organiza- 
tion, it is within our jurisdiction. We are free to 
declare the principles which shall govern it. We may 
declare that, whatever may be the existing law of the 
United States with regard to its enrolled militia — and 
with this I "propose no interference, because it would 
be futile — I say, Massachusetts may proudly declare 
that in her own volunteer military companies, mar- 
shalled under her own local laws, there shall be no 
distinction of color or race. 



THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM AND ITS 
PROPER BASIS. 

SPEKCn ON THE rROPOSITION TO AMEND THE BASIS OP THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESEKTATIVtSl OF MASSACHUSETTS, 15 THE COiSVENTION TO 
KEVISE AND A31END THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT STATE, 7tU JULY, 
1853. 

Mr. President, if tlie question under consideration 
were less important in its bearings, or less embar- 
rassed by conflicting opinions, I should hesitate to 
break the silence which I have been inclined to 
preserve in this Convention. In taking the seat 
to which, while absent from the Commonwealth, in 
another sphere of duty, I have been unexpectedly 
chosen, I felt that it would be becoming in me — 
and that my associates here would recognize the 
propriety of my course — considering the little op- 
portunities I had of late enjoyed to make myself 
acquainted with the sentiments of the people on pro- 
posed changes, especially in comparison with friends 
to whom this movement is mainly due — on these 
accounts, and, also, on other accounts, I felt that it 
would be becoming in me to interfere as little as pos- 
sible with these debates. To others, I have willingly 
left the part which I might have taken. 

And now, when I think that since our labors began, 
weeks, even months, have passed, and that the term 
has been already reached, when, according to the just 

[203] 



204 THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

expectations and earnest desires of many, they should 
be closed, I feel that acts rather than words — that 
votes rather than speeches — at least such as I might 
hope to make — are needed here, to the end that the 
Convention, seasonably, and effectively completing its 
beneficent work, may itself be hailed as a Great Act 
in the history of the Commonwealth. 

But the magnitude of this question justifies debate : 
and allow me to add. that the State, our common 
mother, may feel proud of the ability, the eloquence, 
and the good temper with which it has thus far been 
conducted. Gentlemen have addressed the Convention 
in a manner which would grace any assembly, which 
it has been my fortune to know, at home or abroad. 
Sir, the character of these proceedings gives us new 
assurance for the future. The alarmist, who starts at 
every suggestion of change, and the croaker, who 
augurs constant evil from the irresistible tendency of 
events, must confess, that there are men here, to whose 
intelligence and patriotism, under God, the interests 
of our beloved Commonwealth may be entrusted. 
Yes, sir, Massachusetts is safe. Whatever may be the 
result even of the present important question — which- 
soever scheme of* representation may be adopted — 
Massachusetts will continue to prosper as in times 
past. 

In the course of human history, two States, small 
in territory, have won enviable renown by their genius 
and devotion to Freedom, so that their very names 
awaken echoes ; I refer to Athens and Scotland. But 
Athens — even at Salamis, repelling the Persian host, 
or afterwards, in the golden days of Pericles — and 
Scotland, throughout her long struggles with England, 



AND ITS PEOPER BASIS. 205 

do-wTi to the very act of Union at the beginning of the 
last century — were inferior, each of them, in popula- 
tion and in wealth, to Massachusetts at this moment. 
It belongs to us, according to our capacities, to see 
that this comparison does not end here. Others may 
believe that our duty will be best accomplished by 
standing still. I believe that it can be completely 
done only by a constant incessant advance in all things 
— in knowledge, in science, in art, and lastly in gov- 
ernment itself, destined to be the bright consumma- 
tion, on earth, of all knowledge, all science, and all 
art. 

And now, sir, in framing anew our Constitution, we 
encounter a difficulty which at its original formation 
in 1780, perplexed our fathers — which perplexed the 
Convention of 1820 — which with its perplexities has 
haunted successive Legislatures and the whole people 
down to this day — and which now perplexes us. 
This difficulty occurs in determining the Representative 
System, and it arises mainly from the corporate claims 
of towns. From an early period, the toA\Tis in the 
State, both great and small, with slight exceptions, 
have sent one or more representatives to the Legisla- 
ture. In primitive days, when the towns were few 
and the whole population was scanty, this arrangement 
was convenient at least, if not equitable. But now, 
with the increased number of towns, and the unequal 
distribution of a large population, it has become in- 
convenient, if not inequitable. The existing system 
does not work well, and we are summoned to reform 
it. 

And here, sir, let mc congratulate the Convention 
that, on this most important question, transcending 
18 



206 THE EEPEESENTAriYE SYSTEM 

every other, all of us, without distinction of party, are 
in favor of reform. We are all Reformers. The ex- 
isting system finds no advocate on this floor. Nobody 
here will do it reverence. If the call of the Conven- 
tion were not already amply vindicated — if there were 
doubt anywhere of its expediency, the remarkable con- 
currence of all sides in condemning the existing repre- 
sentative system shows that we have not come together 
without cause. 

The orders of the day have been filled with the 
various plans ofiered to meet the exigency. Most of 
these aimed to preserve the corporate representation 
of towns ; some of them, at least one from the vener- 
able gentleman from Taunton [Mr. Morton], and 
another from the venerable gentleman from Boston 
[Mr. Hale], adopted an opposite system, hitherto un- 
tried among us, and proposed to divide the State into 
districts. And the question has been between these 
hostile propositions ; and that is the question which I 
propose to consider, in the light of history and abstract 
principle, and, also, with reference to present exigen- 
cies. I shall speak Jirst of the origin and nature of 
the Representative System and its proper conditions 
under American institutions. And secondly^ I shall 
endeavor to indicate the principles which may conduct 
us to a practical conclusion on the present occasion. 
In entering upon this service, at this late stage of the 
debate, I feel like a tardy gleaner in a well-traversed 
field ; but I shall proceed. 

I. And I begin with the origin and nature of the 
Representative System. This is an invention of 
modern times. In antiquity there were republics and 
democracies ; but there was no Representative System. 



AND ITS PROPER BASIS. 207 

Rulers were chosen %by the people, as in many Com- 
monwealths ; senators were designated by the king or 
by the censors, as in Rome ; ambassadors or legates 
were sent to a Federal Council, as to the Assembly of 
the Amphictyons ; but, in no ancient State, was any 
body of men ever constituted by the people to repre- 
sent them in the administration of their internal affairs. 
In Athens, the people met in public assembly, and 
directly acted for themselves 4n all questions, foreign 
or domestic. This was possible there, as the State 
was small, and the Assembly at no time exceeded five 
thousand citizens, — a large town-meeting, or mass- 
meeting, we might call it, — not inaptly termed the 
"fierce democracie " of Athens. 

But where the territory M'-as extensive, and the pop- 
ulation scattered and numerous, there could be no 
Assembly of the whole body of citizens. To meet this 
precise difficulty, the Representative System was 
de^'ised. By a machinery, so obvious that we are 
astonished it was not employed in the ancient Com- 
monwealths, the people, though scattered and numer- 
ous, are gathered, by their chosen representatives, into a 
small and deliberative assembly, where, without tumult 
or rashness, they may consider and determine all ques- 
tions which concern them. In every representative 
body, properly constituted, the people are practically 
present. 

Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time ; 
and this system has been no exception to the rule. 
In England, where it reached its earliest vigor, it has 
been, and still is, anomalous in its character. The 
existing divisions of the country, composed of boroughs, 
cities, and counties, were summoned by the king's 



208 THE EEPEESENTATIYE SYSTEM 

writ to send representatives, vith little regard to 
equality of any kind, whether of population, of taxa- 
tion, or of territory. Their existence as corporate 
units was the prevailing title. The irregular opera- 
tion of the system, increasing with the lapse of time, 
provoked a cry for Parliamentary Reform, which, after 
a struggle of more than fifty years, ending in a debate 
which occupied the House of Commons more than fifty 
days, was finally carried ; but, though many abuses 
and inequalities were removed, yet, the anomalous 
representation by counties, cities and boroughs, was 
still continued. And this, sir, is the English system. 

Pass now, sir, to the American system. I say 
American system, for to our country belongs the honor 
of first giving to the world the idea of a system, which, 
discarding corporate representation, founded itself 
absolutely on equality. Let us acknowledge with 
gratitude, that from England have come five great and 
ever memorable institutions, by which Liberty is se- 
cured — I mean the Trial by Jury, — the writ of Haheas 
Corpus, — the Representative System, — the Rules and 
Orders of Debate ; and, lastly, that benign principle 
which pronounces that its air is too pure for a slave 
to breathe — perhaps the five most important political 
establishments of modern times. This glory cannot 
be taken from the mother country. But America 
has added to the Representative System another prin- 
ciple, without which it is incomplete, and which, in 
the course of events, is destined, I cannot doubt, to 
find acceptance wherever the Representative System 
is employed. I mean the principle of equality. 

Here in Massachusetts, home of the ideas out of 
which sprung the Revolution, this principle had its 



AXD ITS rnOPEE BASIS. 209 

earliest expression. And it is not a little curious that 
this very expression was suggested by the two evils of 
which we now complain — namely, a practical ine- 
quality of representation and a too numerous House. 
Let me furnish some details of its history. 

In the earliest days of the Colony, while the number 
of freemen was small and gathered in one neighbor- 
hood, there was no occasion for any representative 
body. All could then meet as at ancient Athens, in 
public assembly ; and in fact, they did so meet, and 
in this way discharged the duties of legislation. But 
as the freemen became scattered and numerous, it was 
found grievous to compel the personal attendance of 
the whole body, and, as a substitute therefor, the 
towns were directed, in 1634, to assemble in General 
Court, by deputies. Here was the establishment of 
the Representative System in Massachusetts, which 
has continued, without interruption, down to our day. 
The size of the House and the relative representation 
of towns have varied at different times ; but the great 
principle of representation — by which a substitute is 
provided for the whole body of the people — has been 
constantly preserved. Still a feeling has long pre- 
vailed, that the system had not yet received its final 
form, while, in more than vision, has been discerned 
that principle of equality which is essential to its com- 
pleteness. 

Among the acts of the first General Court of the 
Revolution, was one passed in the summer of 1775, 
after the battle of Bunker Hill, " declaratory of the 
rights of the towns and districts to elect and depute a 
representative or representatives to serve for and repre- 
sent them in the General Court." By this act, all pre- 
18* 



210 THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

vious acts taking from towns and districts the right of 
sending a representative to the General Court were 
repealed, and every town containing thirty qualified 
voters, was authorized to send a representative. The 
immediate consequence was the two evils to which I 
have already referred — namely, inequality of repre- 
sentation, and a too numerous House ; but the whole 
number of representatives which aroused the com- 
plaints of that day, was two hundred and sixty. 

These grievances were the occasion of a Convention of 
delegates from the towns of Essex County, at Ipswich, 
April 2oth, 1776, where a memorial to the Legislature 
was adopted, which was afterwards presented and 
enforced at the bar of the House by John Lowell. In 
this remarkable document occurs the first development, 
if not the first proclamation of the principle of equality 
in representation. Here, sir, is the fountain and origin 
of an idea, full of strength, beauty and glory. Listen 
to the words of these Revolutionary fathers : — 

" If the representation is equal, it is perfect ; as far as it devi- 
ates from this equality, so far it is imperfect, and approaches to 
the state of slavery ; and the want of a just weight in represen- 
tation is an evil nearly akin to being totally destitute of it. An 
inequality of representation has been justly esteemed the cause, 
which has, in a great degree, sapped the foundation of the once 
admired, but now tottering fabric of the British empire ; and we 
fear that if a different mode of representation from the present is 
not adopted in this colony, our Constitution will not continue to 
the late period of time \vnich the glowing heart of every true 
American now anticipates. . . . 

" We cannot realize that your honors, our wise political fathers, 
have adverted to the present inequality of representation in this 
colony, to the growth of the evil, or to the fatal consequences 
which will probably ensue from the continuance of it. 

*• Each town and district in the colony is, by some late regu- 



AND ITS TEOrER BASIS. 211 

lations, permitted to send one representative to the General 
Court, if such town or district consists of thirty freeholders and 
other inhal)itants qualified to elect ; if of one hundred and twenty, 
to send two. No town is permitted to send more than two except 
the town of Boston, which may send four. There are some 
towns and districts in the colony, in which there are between 
thirty and forty freeholders and other inhabitants qualified to 
elect only ; there are others beside Boston, in which there are 
more than five hundred. The first of these may send one repre- 
sentative, the latter can send only two. If these towns as to 
property are to each other in the same respective proportion, is 
it not clear to a mathematical demonstration that the same 
number of inhabitants of equal property in the one town, have 
but an eighth part of the weight in representation with the other ; 
and with what colorable pretext we would decently inquire." 

Under the pressure of this powerful state paper the 
obnoxious law was repealed ; but the evil was not 
remedied. Then followed the unsuccessful effort to 
make a Constitution in 1777, which failed partly 
through dissatisfaction with its disposition of this very 
question. The county of Essex was again heard in 
another document, now known as the " Essex Result," 
and, among the most able and instructive in our his- 
tory, from which I take the following important words : 
*' The rights of representation should be so equally 
and impartially distributed, that the representatives 
should have the same views and interests with the 
people at large. They should think, feel, and act like 
them, and, in fine, should be an exact miniature of 
their constituents. They shoul I be, if we may use 
the expression, the whole body politic, with all its 
property, rights and privileges, reduced to a similar 
scale, every part hcing diminished in just 'proportion. 
To pursue the metaphor, if, in adjusting the represen- 
tation of freemen, any ten are reduced into one^ all the 



212 THE EEPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

other tens should he alike reduced ; or^ if any hundred 
should he reduced to one, all the other hundreds should 
have just the same reduction^ Mark well these words. 
Here is the Rule of Three, for the first time in history, 
applied ^ to representation. This, Sir, is not the Eng- 
lish system. I call it, with pride, the American 
system. 

In another place the document proceeds as follows : 

" The rights of representation should also be held sacred and 
inviolable, and for this purpose, representation should be fixed 
upon known and easy principles ; and the Constitution should 
make provision that recourse should constantly be had to those 
principles within a very small period of years, to rectify the 
errors that will creep in through lapse of time or alteration of 
situations." 

It then distinctly proposes a system of districts, in 
words which I quote : — 

" In forming the first body of legislators, let regard be had 
only to the representation of persons, not of property. This 
body we call the House of Representatives. Ascertain the num- 
ber of representatives. It ought not to be so large as will induce 
an enormous expense to government, nor too unwieldy to delib- 
erate with coolness and attention ; nor so small as to be unac- 
quainted with the situation and circumstances of the State. One 
hundred will be large enough, and, perhaps, it may be too large. 
We are persuaded that any number of men exceeding that, 
cannot do business with such expedition and propriety as a 
smaller number could. However, let that at present be con- 
sidered as the number. Let us have the number of freemen in 
the several counties in the State ; and let these representatives 
be apportioned among the respective counties, in proportion to 
their number of freemen. 

" As we have the number of freemen in the county, and the 
number of county representatives, by dividing the greater by the 
less we have the number of freemen entitled to send one represen- 



AND ITS morEK BASIS. 213 

tative. Then add as many adjoining toTms together as contain 
that number of freemen, or as near as may be, and let those 
towns form one district, and proceed in this manner through the 
country." 

Mr. Hallett, for Wilbraham (interrupting). Will 
the gentleman state who was the author of that Essex 
paper. 

Mr. SuMiSTER. Theophilus Parsons is the reputed 
author of the document known as the " Essex Result." 

Mr. Hallett. Yes, Sir, it was Theophilus Parsons 
who was the author of that, and John Lowell of the 
other, and good old Tory doctrines they are. 

Mr. Sumner. If these be Tory doctrines, I must 
think well of Toryism. 

Mr. Bird, of Walpole. The gentleman for Marsh- 
field speaks of the basis of representation in one 
House. I should like to know what was the basis 
proposed at that time for the other branch ? 

Mr. SuMXER. Property, I believe. But, Sir, I put 
these inquiries aside. I do not concern myself with 
the authorship of these doctrines, or with the character 
of other doctrines with which they were associated in 
the minds of their authors. All this is irrelevant and 
unimportant. I refer to them in the history of the 
question and hasten on. 

Sir, notwithstanding these appeals, sustained by 
unsurpassed ability, the American system failed to be 
adopted in the Constitution of 1 780. The anomalous 
English system was still continued ; but, as if to cover 
the departure from principle, it was twice declared that 
the representation of the people should be " founded 
on the principle of equality." This declaration still 
continues as our guide, while the irregular operation 



214 THE EEPKESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

of the existing system, with its inequalities and large 
numbers, is a beacon of warning. 

Following closely upon these efforts in Massachu- 
setts, this principle found an illustrious advocate in 
Thomas Jefferson. In his Notes on Virginia, written 
in 1780, he sharply exposes the inequalities of repre- 
sentation, and, a short time afterwards, when the vic- 
tory at Yorktown had rescued Virginia from invasion 
and secured the independence of the United Colonies, 
he prepared a draught of a Constitution for his native 
State, which, disowning the English System and recog- 
nizing the very principle that had failed in Massa- 
chusetts, expressly provided that, " the number of 
delegates which each county may send shall be in pro- 
portion to the numher of its qualijied electors ; and the 
whole number of delegates for the State shall be so 
proportioned to the luhole numher of qualifed electors 
in it, that they shall never exceed three hundred, nor 
be fewer than one hundred ; and if any county be 
reduced in its qualified electors below the number 
authorized to send one delegate, let it be annexed to 
some adjoining county." This proposition, which is 
substantially the Rule of Three, was not adopted in 
Virginia. This State, like Massachusetts, was not yet 
prepared for such a charter of electoral equality ; but 
it still stands as a monument at once of its author and 
of the true system of representation. 

The American System, though first showing itself 
in Massachusetts and in Virginia, found its earliest 
practical exemplification only a few years later in the 
Constitution of the United States. By the Articles 
of Confederation each State was entitled to send to 
Congress not less than two, nor more than seven rcpre- 



AND ITS PROPER BASIS. 216 

scntatives, and in tlie determination of questions, each 
State had one vote only. This plan was rejected by 
the framers of the new Constitution ; and another, 
until then untried in the history of the world, was 
adopted. It was declared that " representatives and 
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States 
Avhich may be included in this Union, according to 
their respective numbers ;^^ not according to property; 
not according to territory ; not according to any cor- 
porate rights ; hut according to their respective numhers. 
And this system has continued down to our day, and 
will continue inmiortal as the Union itself. Here is 
the Rule of Three actually incorporated into the Repre- 
sentative System of the United States. 

An attempt has been made to render this system 
odious, or at least questionable, by charging upon it 
something of the excesses of the great French Revolu- 
tion. Even if this rule had prevailed at that time in 
France, it would be bold to attribute to it any such 
consequences. But it is a mistake to suppose that it 
was then adopted in that country. The republican 
Constitution of 1791 was not founded upon numbers 
only ; but upon numbers, territory and taxation com- 
bined ; a mixed system, which excluded the true idea 
of personal equality. But at the peaceful — almost 
bloodless — revolution of 1848, under the lead of 
Lamartine, a National Assembly was convened on the 
simple basis of population, and one representative was 
allowed for every forty thousand inhabitants. Here 
again is the Ride of Three ; but the idea originally 
came from our country. 

Mr. Hallett. "Will the gentleman from Marsh- 
field allow me to make one more inquiry ? 



216 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

Mr. SuMNEK. Certainly. 

Mr. Hallett. Do I understand the gentleman to 
say that the Rule of Three was applied to representa- 
tion in the United States ? 

Mr. Sumner. I mean to say, that the representa- 
tion in the lower House of Congress was apportioned 
according to numbers ; and this is the Rule of Three. 
The gentleman has in mind, perhaps, the anomalous 
exception with reference to Slavery. 

Mr. Hallett. No, sir. I do not refer to that at 
all. The first apportionment of representation by 
Congress, was made by applying the divisor of thirty 
thousand, which was the ratio of representation, to the 
whole population of the United States. That bill was 
vetoed by General Washington, upon the ground that 
the Constitution required that representation should be 
apportioned among the States according to their respec- 
tive numbers, and that it did not allow of a numerical 
representation of all the people of the United States. 
I ask the gentleman if that rule was the Rule of 
Three ? 

Mr. Sumner. The learned gentleman is substan- 
tially right in his statement ; but he will pardon me if 
I say, that it does not interfere with my proposition. 
The language of the Constitution is explicit : " repre- 
sentatives shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers.''^ This is 
the rule ; I call it the Rule of Three. There are 
minor details in its operation, arising from Slavery, and 
from the division into States, on which I do not dwell, 
as they do not interfere with its paramount principle, 
and I am admonished to proceed. 

A practical question here arises, whether this rule 



AND ITS PROPEU BASIS. 217 

shoiild be applied to the whole body of population, in- 
cluding women, children, and unnaturalized foreigners, 
or whether it should be applied to those only who ex- 
ercise the electoral franchise ; in other words, to voters. 
It is probable that the rule would generally produce 
nearly similar results, in both cases ; as the voters, 
except in a few places, would bear a uniform propor- 
tion to the whole population. But it will be easy to 
determine what the principle of the Representative 
System requires. Since the object of the system is 
to provide a practical substitute for the meetings of 
the people, it should be founded in just proportion on 
the numbers of those who, according to our Constitu- 
tion, can take part in those meetings ; that is, upon the 
qualified voters. The representative body should be a 
minature or abridgment of the electoral body ; in other 
words, of those allowed to participate in public affairs. 
If this conclusion needs authority, it may be found in 
the words of Mr. Madison, in the Debates on the 
Federal Constitution. " It has been very properly 
observed," he says, " that representation was an ex- 
pedient by wliich the meeting of the people themselves 
was rendered unnecessary, and that representatives 
ought, therefore, to bear a proportion to the votes which 
their constituents, if convened, ivould respectively have^ 
— [Madison's Debates, vol. ii. p. 1103.] 

The Rule of Three, then, applied to voters, seems 
to me sound ; but whether applied to voters or pop- 
ulation, it is the true nde of representation, and stands 
on adamantine principles. In my view, it commends 
itself so obviously, so instinctively, to the natural rea- 
son, that I do not feel disposed to dwell upon it. But 
since it has been called in question, I shall be excused 
19 



218 THE KEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

for saying a few words in its behalf. Its advantages 
present themselves in several aspects. 

First. And I put in the front its constant and 
equal operation throughout the Commonwealth. Under 
it, every man will have a representative each year ; and 
every man will have the same representative power as 
every other man. In this respect, it carries out a 
darling idea of our institutions, which cannot be dis- 
owned without weakening their foundations. It gives 
to the great principle of human equality a new expan- 
sion and application. It makes all men, in the enjoy- 
ment of the electoral franchise, whatever be their 
diversities of intelligence, of education, or of wealth, or 
wheresoever they may be within the borders of the 
Commonwealth, in small town or in popidous city, 
absolutely equal at the ballot-box. 

I know that there are persons, sir, who do not hesi- 
tate to assail the whole doctrine of the equality of men, 
as enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, and 
in our Bill of Rights. In this work two eminent 
statesmen, of our own country, and of England, have 
led the way. But it seems to me, that if they had 
chosen to comprehend the meaning of the principle, 
much, if not all of their objection would have been 
removed. It is a palpable truth, that men are not born 
equal in physical strength or in mental capacities ; in 
beauty of form or health of body. These mortal cloaks 
of flesh differ, as do these worldly garments. Diver- 
sity or inequality in these respects, is the law of crea- 
tion. But as God is no respecter of persons, and as 
all are equal in his sight, whether rich or poor, whether 
dwellers in cities or in fields, so are all equal in natural 
rights ; and it is a childish sophism — of which no 



AND ITS PROPER BASIS. 219 

gentleman in this Convention is guilty — to adduce in 
argument against them the physical or mental inequal- 
ities by which men are characterized. Now, I do not 
pretend to class the electoral franchise among those 
inherent, natural rights, which are common to the 
human family, without distinction of age, sex or resi- 
dence ; but I do say, that from the equality of men, 
which we so proudly proclaim, we may derive a just 
rule for its exercise. For myself, I accept this prin- 
ciple, and just so far and just so soon as possible, I 
would be guided by it in the system of Representation. 
But there are other reasons still. 

Secondly. The rule of Three, as applied to repre- 
sentation, is commended by its simplicity. It super- 
sedes all the painful calculations to w^hich we have 
been driven, the long agony of mathematics as it was 
called by my friend over the way [Mr. Giles], and is 
as easy in its application as it seems to me to be just. 

Thirdly. This rule is founded in nature, and not in 
art ; on natural bodies, and not on artificial bodies ; 
on men, and not on corporations ; on souls, and not on 
petty geographical lines. On this account it may be 
called a natural rule, and when once established, will 
become fixed and permanent, beyond all change or 
desire of change. 

And, fourthly^ this rule removes, to every possible 
extent, those opportunities of political partiality and 
calculation in the adjustment of the representation, 
which are naturally incident to any departure from 
precise rule. It was beautifully said of law by the 
greatest intellect of Antiquity, that it is mind icithout 
passion, and this very definition I would extend to a 
rule which, with little intervention from human w'ill, 



220 THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

is graduated by numbers, passionless as law itself 
in the conception of Aristotle. The object of free 
institutions is, to withdraw all concerns of State, so 
far as practicable, from human discretion, and place 
them under the shield of human principles, to the end, 
according to the words of our Constitution, that there 
may be a government of laws, and not of men. But, 
just in proportion as we depart from precise rule, it 
becomes a government of men, and not of laws. 

Such considerations as these, thus briefly expressed, 
seem to vindicate this rule of representation. But let 
me not forget the arguments adduced against it. 
These have assumed two distinct forms ; one is 
founded on the character of our towns and the impor- 
tance of preserving their influence ; the other is 
founded on the alleged necessity of counteracting the 
centralization of power in the cities. Now, of these 
in their order. 

And, first, of the importance of preserving our towns. 
Sir, I yield to no man in appreciation of the good done 
by these free municipalities. The able member for 
Erving [Mr. Griswold], who. began this debate, the 
eloquent member for Berlin [Mr. Boutwell], and my 
excellent friend of many years, the accomplished 
member for Manchester [Mr. Dana], in the masterly 
speeches which they have addressed to the Convention, 
have attributed no good influence to the towns which 
I do not recognize also. With them I agree, cordially, 
that the towns in Massachusetts, like the municij^alities 
of Switzerland, have been schools and nurseries of 
freedom ; and that in these small bodies, men Avere 
early disciplined in those primal duties of citizenship, 
which, on a grander scale, have been made the founda- 



AND ITS PKOPER BASIS. 221 

tion of our whole political fabric. But, I cannot go 
so far as to attribute this remarkable influence to the 
assumed fact, that each town by itself was entitled to 
a representative in the legislative body. At the time 
of the Revolution, this was the prerogative of most 
towns, though not of all ; but it cannot be regarded 
as the distinctive, essential, life-giving attribute. At 
most it was only an incident. 

Sir, the true glory of the to^vns then was, that they 
were organized on the principles of self-government, 
at a time when these principles were not generally re- 
cognized ; that each town by itself was a little republic, 
where the whole body of freemen were voters, with 
powers of local legislation, taxation and administra- 
tion, and, especially, with the power to choose their 
own head and all subordinate magistrates. Sir, the 
boroughs of England have possessed the power to send 
a member — often two members — to Parliament ; 
but this has not saved them from corruption ; nor has 
any person attributed to them, though in the enjoy- 
ment of this franchise, the influence which has pro- 
ceeded from our municipalities. And the reason is 
obvious. They were organized under charters from 
the crown, by which the local government was vested 
— not in the whole body of freeman — but in small 
councils, or select classes, originally nominated by the 
crown, and ever afterwards renewing themselves. No 
such abuse prevailed in our municipalities ; and this 
political health at home, sir, and not the incident of 
exclusive representation in a distant Legislature, hag 
been the secret of their strength. This I would ever 
cherish. 

And this brings me, in the next place, to the objec- 
19* 



222 THE KEPEESENTATIVE SYSTE:M 

tion founded on centralization of power in the cities. 
It is said that wealth, business, population and talent, 
in its multitudinous forms, all tend to the cities, and 
that the excessive influence of this concentrated mass, 
quickened by an active press, by facilities of concert, 
and by social appliances ought to be counterbalanced 
by an allotment to the towns of a representative weight 
beyond their proportion of numbers. Now, sir, while 
confessing and regretting the present predominance of 
the cities, I must be permitted to question the propriety 
of the proposed remedy. And here, as I differ in some 
respects from friends on both sides, I make an appeal 
for a candid judgment of what I shall candidly say. 

I would not be unjust to cities. But no student of 
history can fail to perceive that they have performed 
different parts at different stages of the world. In 
antiquity, they were the acknowledged centres of 
power, often of tyranny. But in the middle ages, 
they became the home of freedom, and the bridle to 
feudalism. For this service they should be gratefully 
remembered. And now there is another chansre. The 
armed feudalism is overthrown ; but it is impossible 
not to see that it has yielded to a commercial feudal- 
ism, whose seat is in the cities, and which, in its way, 
is hardly less selfish and exacting than the feudalism 
of the iron hand. My friend, the member for Man- 
chester [Mr. Dana], was clearly right when he said, 
that the Boston of to-day is not the Boston of our 
fathers. But let me be understood. I make no im- 
peachment of individuals ; but simply indicate those 
combined influences proceeding from the potent Spirit 
of Trade — alas ! how unlike that Spirit of the Lord, 
where is liberty I — which are not inconsistent with 



AND ITS mOPER BASIS. 223 

the most exalted individual wortli. I think, while 
confessing the abounding charities of the rich men, 
Avhose eulogy we have heard more than once in this 
debate, it must be admitted that those pure princi- 
ples which are the breath of the republic, now find 
their truest atmosphere in calm retreats, away from 
the strife of gain, and the hot pavements of crowded 
streets. Sir, it is not only when we look upon the 
fields, hills and valleys, clad in verdure, and shining 
with silver lake or rivulet, that we may be ready to 
exclaim : — 

" God made the country, and man made the town." 

But, sir, while maintaining these opinions, I cannot 
admit the argument, that the centralized power of the 
cities may be counteracted by degrading them in the 
scale of representation. This cannot be purposely 
done without departing from fundamental principles, 
and ^^'ithout overthrowing the presiding doctrine of 
personal equality. Cities are but congregations of 
men ; and men excr^. influence in various ways ; by 
the accident of position ; by the accident of intelli- 
gence ; by the accident of property ; by the accident 
of birth ; and lastly, by the vote. It is the vote only 
which is not an accident ; and it should be the boast 
of ^Massachusetts, that all men, whatever may be their 
accidents, are equal in their votes. [Here the hammer 
of the President fell, as the hour expired ; but by 
ananimous consent, Mr. Sumner proceeded.] The idea 
of property as a check upon numbers, which, on a 
former occasion, found such favor in this hall, is now 
rejected in the adjustment of our Representative Sys- 
tem. And, sir, I venture to predict that the propo- 



224 THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

sition, newly broached in tliis Commonwealth, to re- 
strain the cities by a curtailment of their just represen- 
tative power, will hereafter be as little regarded. 

II. Mr. President, such is what I have to say on 
the history and principles of the Representative System, 
particularly in the light of American institutions, and 
this brings me to the practical question at this moment. 
I cannot doubt that the District System, as it is gener- 
ally called, whereby the representative power will be 
distributed in just proportion, according to the Rule 
of Three, among the voters of the Commonwealth, is 
the true system, destined at no distant day to prevail. 
And, gladly, would I see this Convention hasten the 
day by presenting it to the people for adoption in the 
organic law. To this end I have striven by my votes. 
But, sir, I am not blind to what has passed. The 
votes already taken show that the Convention is not 
prepared for this change, and I am assured by gentle- 
men more familiar with public sentiment than I can 
pretend to be, that the people are not yet prepared 
for it. • 

And thus, sir, we are brought to the position occu- 
pied successively by the Conventions of 1780 and 1820, 
each of which, though containing warm partisans of 
the District System, shrank from its adoption ; as in 
Virginia, the early recommendation of Jefferson, and 
his vehement support at a later day, have been power- 
less to produce this important amendment. John 
Lowell, who appeared at the bar of the Massachusetts 
Legislature in 1 776, to vindicate the principle of equality 
in representation, and Theophilus Parsons, the author 
of the powerful tract which proposed to found the 



AXD ITS morER BASIS. 225 

Representative System on the Ptulc of Three, were 
both members of the first Convention ; and, 1 know not 
if the District System has since had any abler defenders. 
To these I might add the great name of John Adams, 
Avho had early pleaded for equality of representation, 
and had declared in words adopted by the Essex Con- 
vention, that the Representative Assembly should be 
an exact portrait in miniature of the people at large. 
— ( Works, Vol. iv., pp. 186, 195, 205.) In the Con- 
vention of 1820, the District System was cherished and 
openly extolled by a distinguished jurist, at that time 
a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, — 
Joseph Story, — whose present fame gives additional 
importance to his opinions. And yet, the desire of 
these men failed. The corporate representation of 
towns was preserved, and the District System pro- 
nounced impracticable. In the address put forth by 
the Convention of 1780, and signed by its President, 
James Bowdoin, these words may be found : — 

" You will observe that we have resolved that representatives 
ought to be founded on the principle of equality ; but it cannot 
be understood thereby, that each town in the Coraraonweiilth 
shall have weight and importance in a just proportion to its 
numbers and property. An exact representation would be im- 
practicable, even in a system of government arising from the 
state of nature, and much more so in a state already divided 
into nearly three hxindred corporations." 

The Convention seem to have recognized the theoretic 
fitness of an " exact representation ; " but did not 
regard it as feasible in a State already divided into 
nearly three hundred corporations. In the Convention 
of 1820, Joseph Story, who has been already quoted 
by my eloquent friend [Mr. Choate], used language 



226 THE EEPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

wHch, thougli not so strong as that of the early address, 
yet has the same result : — 

" In the Select Committee, I was in favoi' of a plan of repre- 
sentation in the House founded on population, as the most just 
and equal in its operation. I still retain that opinion. There 
■were serious objections against this system, and it was believed by 
others that the towns could not be brought to consent to yield 
up the corporate privileges of representation which had been en- 
joyed so long, and were so intimately connected with their pride 
and their interests. I felt constrained, therefore, with great re- 
luctance to yield up a favorite plan. I have lived long enough to 
know, that in any question of government, something is to be 
yielded up on all sides. Conciliation and compromise lie at the 
origin of every free government ; and the question never was, 
and never can be, what is absolutely best, but what is relatively 
wise, just and expedient. 1 have not hesitated, therefore, to 
support the plan of the Select Committee as one that, on the 
whole, was the best that, under existing circumstances, could be 
obtained." 

Sh', I am not insensible to these considerations, nor 
to the authority of these examples. A division of the 
State into districts would be a change, in conformity 
with abstract principles, which would interfere with 
the existing opinions, habitudes and prejudices of the 
towns, all of which must be respected. A change so 
important in its character, cannot be advantageously 
made, unless supported by the permanent feelings and 
convictions of the people. Institutions are formed 
from within^ and not from without. They spring from 
custom and popular faith, silently operating with inter- 
nal power, and not from the imposed will of a law- 
giver. And our present duty here, at least on this 
question, may be, in some measure, satisfied, if we aid 
this growth. 

Two great schools of jurisprudence, for a while, 



AND ITS PROPER BASIS. 227 

divided the learned mind of Germany ; one known as 
the Historic, the other as the Didactic. The question 
between them was similar to that now before the 
Convention. The first regarded all laws and institu- 
tions as the growth of custom under the constant in- 
fluences of history ; the other insisted upon giving to 
them, by positive legislation, a form in conformity with 
abstract reason. It is clear that both were, in a mea- 
sure, right. No law-giver or statesman can disregard 
either history or abstract reason. He must contem- 
plate both. He will faithfully study the Past, and 
will recognize its treasures and traditions ; but, with 
equal fidelity, he will sot his face towards the Future, 
where all institutions shall, at last, be in harmony 
with truth. 

I have been encouraged to believe in the practica- 
bility of the District System, by its conformity with 
reason, and by seeing how naturally it went into oper- 
ation under the Constitution of the United States. 
But there is a difference between that case and the 
present. A new Government was then founded, with 
new powers, applicable to a broad expanse of country ; 
but the Constitution of Massachusetts was little more 
than a continuation of pre-existing usages and institu- 
tions, with all dependence upon royalty removed. This 
distinction may help us now. If the country were 
absolutely new, with no embarrassments from existing 
corporate rights — claims I would rather call them — 
it might easily be arranged, according to the most 
approved theory, as Philadelphia was originally laid 
out by its great founder, on the model of the German 
city which he had seen in his youth. But to bring 
our existing system into symmetry and to lay it out 



228 THE REPRESEISTTATIYE SYSTEM 

anew, would seem to be a task — at least I am reluct- 
antly led to this conclusion by what I have heard here 
— not unlike that of rebuilding Boston, and of shaping 
its compact mass of crooked streets into the regular 
rectangular forms of the city of Penn. And yet this 
is not impossible. With each day, by demolishing 
ancient houses and widening ancient ways, changes are 
made, which, tend to this result. 

Sir, we must recognize the existing condition of 
things, remedy all practical grievances, so far as pos- 
sible, and set our faces towards the true system. We 
must act in the Present ; but be mindful also of the 
Future. There are proper occasions for compromise, 
as most certainly there are rights which are beyond 
compromise. But the Representative System is an 
expedient or device, for ascertaining the popular will, 
and though well satisfied that this can be best founded 
on numbers, I would not venture to say, in the present 
light of political science, that the right of each man to 
an equal representation, according to the Rule of 
Three and without regard to existing institutions or 
controlling usages, is of that inherent and lofty char- 
acter — like the God-given right to life or liberty — 
which admits of no compromise. 

Several grievances exist, which will be removed by 
the proposed amendments. There is one which I had 
hoped would disappear, but which is the necessary 
incident of corporate representation ; I mean the un- 
wieldy size of the House. 

It is generally said, that a small body is more open 
to bribery and corruption than a large body ; but, on 
the other hand, I have heard it asserted, that the larger 
is more exposed than the smaller. I put this consider- 



AND ITS rROrER BASIS. 229 

ation aside. My objection to a large House is, that it 
•is inconvenient for the dispatch of public business. 
There is a famous saying of Cardinal de Rctz, that 
every assembly, of more than one hundred, is a mob ; 
and Lord Chesterfield applied this same term to the 
British House of Commons. This body, at present, 
nominally has six hundred and fifty-five members. 
It is called, by Lord Brougham, " preposterously large," 
but a quorum for business is forty only ; and it is only 
on rare occasions of political importance, that its 
benches are completely occupied. The House of 
Lords, nominally, has four hundred and forty-seven 
members ; but a quorum in this body consists of three 
only ; and much of its business is transacted in a very 
thin attendance. 

The experience of Congress, and also of other States, 
points to a reduction of our present number. Indeed, 
for many years, this was a general desire through the 
State. In the earliest colonial days, every town was 
allowed three deputies ; but in five years the number, 
on reaching thirty-three, was reduced to two for each. 
At a later day, in 1694, a great contest in the House 
was decided by a vote of twenty-six against twenty- 
four. In the agitating period between 1762 and 1773, 
covering the controversies which heralded the Revolu-; 
tion, the House contained about one hundred and ten. 
Only on one occasion, the magnitude of the interest is 
said by Governor Hutchinson to have drawn together 
one hundred and thirty. At the last session of the 
Provincial Legislature, in May, 1774, when the revo- 
lutionary conflict was at hand, the complete returns of 
the journals show one hundred and forty ; and in 
1776, there was a House of two hundred and sixty. 
20 



230 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM 

But this " enormous and very unwieldy size," as it 
was then called, was assigned as a reason for a new 
Constitution. I regret that we cannot profit by this 
experience. A House of two hundred and fifty, or, 
since we are accustomed to large congregations, of 
three hundred at most, would be an improvement on 
the present system. 

But, there are two proposed improvements which I 
hail with satisfaction ; one relates to the small towns, 
and the other to the cities. The small towns will have 
a more constant representation, and this of itself is an 
approach to the true principle of representation, which 
should be constant as well as equal. The cities will 
be divided into districts, and this I regard of two-fold 
importance — first, as the beginning of a true system ; 
and secondly, as reducing the power, which the cities, 
by the large number of their representatives, chosen by 
the general ticket, now exercise. 

A respected gentleman, now in my eye, has re- 
minded me that in boyhood, his attention was ar- 
rested in this House by what was called the Boston 
seat, reserved exclusively for the Boston members, 
who sat together, on cushions, while other members 
were left to such accommodations as they could find 
on bare benches. This discrimination ceased long ago. 
But it seems to me that this reserved and cushioned 
seat is typical of another discrimination, which Boston, 
in common with the cities, still enjoys. Sir, in voting 
for forty-four representatives, the elector in Boston ex- 
ercises a representative power transcending far that of 
electors in the country ; and the majority which rules 
Boston and determines the whole delegation, exercises 
a representative power transcending far that of any 



AND ITS PKOPER BASIS. 231 

similar number in tlie Commonwealth. This is appa- 
rent on the bare statement, as forty-four sticks are 
stronger in one compact bundle, than when apart or 
in small parcels. Thus, while other counties are 
divided, the delegation from Boston is united. In all 
political contests, it is like the well-knit Macedonian 
phalanx, or the iron front of the Roman legion, in 
comparison with the disconnected, individual warriors, 
against whom they were matched. But this abuse is 
to be removed ; and here is the beginning — I had 
almost said the inauguration — of a true electoral 
equality in our Commonwealth. 

And now, in conclusion, while thanking gentlemen 
for the kind attention with which they have honored 
me, let me express briefly the result to which I have 
come. I have openly declared my convictions with 
regard to the District System, and in accordance with 
these, have recorded my votes in this Convention. 
These votes, which reveal my inmost desires on this 
matter, I would not change. But the question is not 
now between the District System, which I covet so 
much for Massachusetts, and the proposed amend- 
ments ; but between these amendments and the exist- 
ing system. On this issue I decide without hesitation. 
I shall vote, sir, for the propositions of amendment 
now before the Convention, should they come to a 
question on their final passage ; not because they 
are all that I desire ; not because they seem to satisfy 
the requirements of principles which I cannot deny ; 
not because they constitute a permanent adjustment 
of this difiicult question ; but because, they are the 
best which I can now obtain ; because they reform 
grievances of the existing system ; and, because, 



232 THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM ETC. 

they "begin a change, which can end only in the es- 
tablishment of a Representative System, founded in 
reality, as in name, on equality. Their adoption 
will be a triumph of conciliation and harmony, and will 
furnish new testimony to the well-tempered spirit of 
our institutions, 

" Where jarring interests, reconciled, create 
Tlie accordins; music of a well mixed State." 



BILLS OF RIGHTS ; THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. 

SPEECH ON THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL 
OF RIGHTS, IN THE COXVENTIOX TO REVISE AND AMEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, 25tU JULY, 1853. 



As Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, Mr. 
Sumner submitted a Report, on which, in Committee of the 
Whole, he spoke as follows : 

Mr. Chairman : As chairman of the Committee on 
the Preamble and Bill of Rights, it belongs to me to 
introduce and explain their Report. It will be per- 
ceived that it is brief and proposes no important 
changes. But in justice to the distinguished gentle- 
men with whom I had the honor of being associated on 
that Committee, I deem it my duty to suggest that the 
extent of their labors should not be judged by this 
result. It appears from the proceedings of the Con- 
vention of 1820, that the Committee on the Bill of 
Rights at that time sat longer than any other Commit- 
tee. I Relieve that the same Committee in the present 
Convention might claim the same pre-eminence. Their 
records show twenty different sessions. 

At these sessions, the Preamble and the Bill of 
Rights, in its thirty different propositions, were passed 
in review and considered, clause by clause ; the various 



234 BILLS OF EIGHTS ; 

orders of the Convention, amounting to twelve in num- 
ber ; the petitions addressed to the Convention and 
referred to the Committee ; and also informal proposi- 
tions from members of the Convention and others, 
were considered ; some of them repeatedly and at 
length. On many questions there Avas a decided dif- 
ference of opinion and on a few the Committee was 
nearly equally divided. But after the best consid- 
eration we could bestow upon them in our protracted 
series of meetings, it was found that the few simple 
propositions, now on your table, were all upon which 
a majority of the Committee could be brought to unite. 
As such I was directed to present them to the Conven- 
tion. And here, sir, admonished by the lapse of time 
and the desire to close these proceedings, I might be 
content with this simple statement. 

But, notwithstanding the urgency of our business, I 
cannot allow the opportunity to pass — indeed I should 
not do my duty — without attempting for a brief mo- 
ment to show the origin and character of this part of 
our Constitution. In this way we may learn its weight 
and authority and appreciate the difficulty and delicacy 
of any change in its substance or even its form. I will 
try not to abuse your patience. 

The Preamble and Bill of Rights, like the rest of 
our Constitution, were from the pen of John Adams ; 
among whose published works the whole document, in 
its original draught, may be found. At the time when 
he rendered this important service to his native Com- 
monwealth «,nd to the principles of free institutions 
everywhere, he was forty-five years of age. But he 
was not unprepared. The natural maturity of his 
powers had been enriched by the well-ripened fruit of 



THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. 235 

assiduous study and of an active life, both of -which 
concurred in him. The examples of Greece and Rome 
and the writings of Sidney and Locke were especially 
familiar to his mind. The common law he had made 
his own, and mastered well its whole arsenal of Free- 
dom. For a long time the vigorous and unfailing 
partisan of the liberal cause in Boston, throughout its 
many conflicts ; then in Congress, whither he was 
transferred, the irresistible champion of Independence ; 
and then the republican representative of the united 
but still struggling Colonies at the Court of France ; 
in the brief interval between his two foreign missions, 
only seven days after landing from his long ocean 
voyage, he was chosen a delegate to the Constitutional 
Convention, and at once brought all his varied ex- 
perience, rare political culture and eminent powers 
to the task of adjusting the frame- work of government 
for Massachusetts. As his work, it all claims our 
regard ; and no part bears the imprint of his mind so 
much as the Preamble and Bill of Rights ; nor is any 
other part authenticated as coming so exclusively from 
him. . 

At the time of its first adoption, the Massachusetts 
Bill of Rights was more ample in its provisions, and 
more complete in form, than any similar Declaration in 
English or Colonial history. Glancing at its predeces- 
sors, we shall learn something of its sources. First 
came, long back in the thirteenth century, Magna Charta, 
with its generous safeguards of Freedom, wrung from 
King John by the Barons at Runnymede. From time 
to time these liberties were confirmed, and, after an 
interval of centuries, they were again ratified, at the 
beginning of the unhappy reign of Charles I. by a 



236 BILLS OF EIGHTS ; 

Parliamentary Declaration, to which the monarch as- 
sented, known as the Petition of Right, which, in its 
very title, reveals the humility with which the rights 
of the people were then maintained. And, finally, in a 
different tone and language, at the revolution of 1688, 
when James II. was driven from his dominions, a 
" Declaration of the true, ancient and indubitable 
rights and liberties of the people of the kingdom," 
familiarly known as the Bill of Rights, was delivered 
by the Convention Parliament to the new sovereigns, 
William and Mary, and embodied in the Act of Settle- 
ment, by virtue of which they sat on the throne. 
These, sir, are the English examples. 

Their influence was not restrained to England. It 
crossed the ocean. From the beginning the colonists 
were tenacious of the rights and liberties of English- 
men, and, at various times and in various forms, de- 
clared them. Connecticut, as early as 1639 ; Virginia 
in 1624 and 1676; Pennsylvania in 1682 ; New York 
in 1691; — and I might mention others still — put 
forth Declarations, brief and meagre, but kindred to 
those of the mother country. In the colony of New 
Plymouth, the essential principles of Magna Charta 
were proclaimed in 1636, under the name of the General 
Fundamentals; and in 1672, the inhabitants of Massa- 
chusetts Bay announced in words, worthy of careful 
study, that " the free fruition of such Liberties, Immu- 
nities, Privileges, as Humanity, Civility, and Chris- 
tianity call for, as due to every man in his place and 
proportion, without impeachment and infringement, 
hath ever been and ever will be, the tranquillity and 
stability of churches and Commonwealth, and the 



THEIR HISTORY AXD POLICY. 237 

denial or deprival thereof, the disturbance, if not the 
ruin, of both." 

In the animated discussions, which immediately 
preceded the revolution, the rights and liberties of 
Englishmen were constantly asserted as the birth-right 
of the colonists. This was often done by formal reso- 
lutions or declarations, couched at first in moderate 
phrase. At the outrage of the Stamp Act, a Congress 
of delegates from nine States, held at New York in 
October, 1765, put forth a series of resolution entitled, 
*' Declaration of our hwiible opinion respecting the most 
essential rights and liberties of the colonists." The 
humility of this language may recall the English Peti- 
tion of Right under Charles I. This was followed in 
1774 by the Declaration of the Continental Congress, 
which, in another tone and with admirable force, arrays 
in ten different propositions, the rights which " by the 
immutable laws of nature, the principles of English 
liberty and the several charters of compacts" belong 
to " the inhabitants of the English colonies in North 
America," 

" Time's noblest offspring is the last ; " 

and the whole colonial series was aptly closed by 
the Declaration of Independence, Avhich declared not 
merely the rights of Englishmen, but the rights of 
men. 

But only a few brief weeks before the Declaration 
of Independence, Virginia, taking the lead of her sister 
colonies, had established a Constitution to which was 
j^refixed an elaborate Bill of Rights. This remarkable 
document, which has been the grand precedent for the 
whole country, marks an epoch in political history. 



238 BILLS OF EIGHTS ; 

In all English Declarations of Rights and even in those 
of the Colonies, unless we except the early declaration 
of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay, stress had 
been laid upon the liberties and privileges of English- 
men. The rights claimed even by the Continental 
Congress of 1774, in their masculine Declaration, were 
the rights of "free and natural-born subjects within 
the realm of England." But the Virginia Bill of 
Rights, standing at the front of its first Constitution, 
discarded all narrow title from mere English precedent, 
planted itself on the eternal law of God, above every 
human ordinance, and openly proclaimed that " all 
men are equally free and independent ; " a declaration, 
which is repeated, though in other language, by the 
Massachusetts Bill of Rights. 

The policy of Bills of Rights has been sometimes 
called in question. It has been said that they were 
originally privileges or concessions extorted from the 
King, and, though expedient in a monarchy, are of 
little value in a Republic. As late as 1821, in the 
Convention for revising the Constitution of New York, 
doubts of their utility were openly expressed by Mr. 
Van Buren. But they are now above question. -Each 
new State, ending with California, follows the example 
of Virginia and Massachusetts, and places its Bill of 
Rights in the front of its Constitution. Nor can I 
doubt that much good is done by this frank assertion 
of fundamental principles. The public mind is in- 
structed ; people learn to know their rights ; liberal 
institutions are confirmed ; and the Constitution is 
made stable in the hearts of the community. The 
provisions in the Bill of Rights are lessons of political 
wisdom and anchors of liberty. They are also the 



THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. 239 

constant index and scourge of injustice and wrong. 
In Massachusetts, Slavery itself disappeared before the 
declaration that " all men are born free and equal," 
interpreted by a liberty-loving Court. 

In the Convention of 1780, the Bill of Rights formed 
a prominent subject of interest. The necessity of such 
a safeguard had been pressed upon the people, and its 
absence from the Constitution of 1777, was unquestion- 
ably a reason for the rejection of that ill-fated effort. 
Indeed this Constitution was openly opposed because 
it had no Bill of Rights. In the array of objections to 
it, at the period, was the following, which I take from 
an important contemporaneous publication. " That a 
Bill of Rights, clearly ascertaining and defining the 
rights of conscience and that security of person and 
property, which every member of the State hath a right 
to expect from the supreme power thereof, ought to be 
settled and established previous to the ratification of 
any Constitution for the State." Accordingly, at the 
earliest moment after the organization of the Conven- 
tion, a motion was made " that there be a Declaration 
of Rights prepared previous to the framing of the 
Constitution of Government ; " and this motion, after 
" a general and extensive debate," prevailed by a 
nearly unanimous vote. The whole number present, 
as returned by the monitors, was two hundred and 
fifty-one, of whom two hundred and fifty were in the 
affirmative. By this triumphant vote did the early 
fathers of Massachusetts manifest their watchfulness 
for the rights of the people ; and there is good reason 
to believe also, that among the motives which stimu- 
lated it, was a determination in this way to abolish 
Slavery, The Convention then resolved " to proceed 



240 BILL OF EIGHTS ; 

to the framing a new Constitution of Govcnimcut," 
A grand Committee of thirty was chosen to perform 
these two important duties ; and this Committee, after 
extended discussion, entrusted to John Adams alone 
the preparation of a Declaration of Rights, and to a 
Sub-Committee, consisting of James Bowdoin, Samuel 
Adams and John Adams, the duty of preparing the 
Form of a Constitution, which Sub- Committee again 
delegated the task to John Adams ; so that to the pen 
of this illustrious citizen, we are indebted primarily 
both for the Declaration of Rights and the Form of 
the Constitution. 

It is not difficult to trace most, if not all, of the 
ideas and provisions of our Preamble and Declaration 
of Rights, to their primitive sources. The Preamble, 
wherein the body politic is founded on the fiction of 
the social compact, was doubtless inspired by the 
writings of Sidney and Locke, and by the English 
discussions at the period of the Revolution of 1688, 
when this questionable theory did good service in 
response to the assumptions of Filmer, and as a 
shield against arbitrary power. Of the different pro- 
visions in the Bill of Rights, some are in the very 
words of Magna Charta ; others are derived from the 
ancient common law, the Petition of Right and the 
Bill of Rights of 1688, while no less than sixteen 
may be found substantially in the Virginia Bill of 
Rights ; but these again are in great part derived 
from the earlier fountains. 

And now, sir, you have before you for revision 
and arncndment this early work of our Fathers. I 



THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. 211 

do not stop to consider its peculiar merits. With 
satisfaction I might point to special safeguards by 
"Nvhich our rights have been protected against usur- 
pations, whether executive, legislative or judicial. 
With pride I might dwell on those words which ban- 
ished Slavery from our soil, and rendered the Decla- 
ration of Independence here with us a living letter. 
But the hour does not require or admit any such 
service. You have a practical duty which I seek 
to promote ; and I now take leave of the whole sub- 
ject, with the simple remark, that a document pro- 
ceeding from such a pen — drawn from such sources 
— with such an origin in all respects — speaking so 
early for Human Rights — and now for more than 
threescore years and ten a household word to the 
people of Massachusetts — should be touched by the 
Convention only with extreme care. 

21 



FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK. 

SPEECH AT THE PLYMOUTH FESTIVAL IN COMMEMORATION" OF 
THE EMBARKATION OF THE PILGRIMS, IST AUGUST, 1853. 



The President, in giving the next toast, said they had already 
been delighted with the words of a distinguished member of the 
Senate of the United States. They were favored with the pres- 
ence of another ; and he would give as a sentiment : — 

*T^e Senate of the United States, — The concentrated light 
of the stars of the Union. ' ' 

Mr. Sumner responded as follows : — 

Mr. President. — You bid me speak for the Senate 
of the United States. But I cannot forget that there 
is another voice here, of classical eloquence, which 
might more fitly render this service. As one of the 
humblest members of that body, and associated with 
the public councils for a brief period only, I should 
prefer that my distinguished colleague [Mr. Everett], 
whose fame is linked with a long political life, should 
speak for it. And there is yet another here [JSIr. 
Hale], who, though not at this moment a member of 
the Senate, has, throughout an active and brilliant 
career, marked by a rare combination of ability, elo- 
quence, and good humor, so identified himself with 

[242] 



A FINGEE-rOINT FROM rLYMOUTII ROCK. 243 

it in the public mind, that he might well speak for it 
always, and when he speaks all arc pleased to listen. 
But, sir, you have ordered it otherwise. 

From the tears and trials at Delft Plavcn, from the 
deck of the " Mayflower," from the landing at Plym- 
outh Rock, to the Senate of the United States, is 
a mighty contrast, covering whole spaces of history, 
hardly less than from the wolf that suckled Romulus 
and Remus to that Roman Senate which, on curule 
chairs, swayed Italy and the world. From these ob- 
scure beginnings of poverty and weakness, which you 
now piously commemorate, and on which all our minds 
naturally rest to-day, you bid us leap to that marble 
Capitol, where thirty-one powerful republics, bound in 
indissoluble union, a Plural Unit, are gathered together 
in legislative body, constituting a part of One Gov- 
ernment, which, stretching from ocean to ocean, and 
counting millions of people beneath its majestic rule, 
'surpasses far in wealth and might any Government of 
the Old World when the little band of Pilgrims left it, 
and now promises to be a clasp between Europe and 
Asia, bringing the most distant places, near together, 
so that there shall.be no more Orient or Occident. It 
were interesting to dwell on the stages of this grand 
procession ; but it is enough on this occasion merely 
to glance at them and pass on. 

Sir, it is the Pilgrims that we commemorate to-day ; 
not the Senate. For this moment, at least, let us 
tread under foot all pride of empire, — all exultation 
in our manifold triumphs of industry, of science, of 
literature, — with all the crowding anticiiDations of the 
vast untold Future, — that we may reverently bow 
before the forefathers. The day is theirs. In the 



244 A riNGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH EOCK. 

contemplation of their virtue we shall derive a lesson, 
Vi^hich, like truth, may judge us sternly; but, if we 
can really follow it, like truth, it shall make us free. 
For myself, I accept the admonitions of the day. It 
may teach us all never, by word or act, although we 
may be few in numbers or alone, to swerve from those 
primal principles of duty, which, from the landing at 
Plymouth Rock, have been the life of Massachusetts. 
Let me briefly unfold the lesson ; though to the dis- 
cerning soul it unfolds itself. 

Few persons in history have suffered more from 
contemporary misrepresentation, abuse, and persecu- 
tion, than the English Puritans. At first a small 
body, they were regarded with indifference and con- 
tempt. But by degrees they grew in numbers, and 
drew into their company men of education, intelli- 
gence, and even of rank. Reformers in all ages have 
had little of blessing from the world which they sought 
to serve ; but the Puritans were not disheartened. 
Still they persevered. The obnoxious laws of con- 
formity they vowed to withstand till, in the fervid 
language of the time, " they be sent back to the dark- 
ness from whence they came." '^'hrough them the 
spirit of modern Freedom made itself potently felt in 
its great warface with Authority, in Church, in Litera- 
ture and in the State ; in other words, for religious, 
intellectual and political emancipation. The Puritans 
primarily aimed at religious Freedom ; for this they 
contended in Parliament, under Elizabeth and James ; 
for this they suffered ; but so connected are all these 
great and glorious interests, that the struggles for one 
have always helped the others. Such service did they 
do, that Hume, whose cold nature sympathized little 



A FINGEK-POINT FKOM PLYMOUTH ROCK. 245 

with thdir burning souls, is obliged to confess that to 
the Puritans alone "• the English owe the whole free- 
dom of their constitution." 

As among all reformers, so among them there were 
differences of degree. Some continued within the pale 
of the National Church, and there pressed their ineffec- 
tual attempts in behalf of the good cause. Some at 
length, driven by conscientious convictions, and unwil- 
ling to be partakers longer in its enq^-mitics, stung 
also by the cruel excesses of magisterial power, openly 
disclaimed the National Establishment and became a 
separate sect, first under the name of Brownists< from 
the person who had led in this new organization, and 
then under the better name of Separatists. I like this 
word, sir. It has a meaning. After long struggles in 
Parliament and out of it, in Church and State, con- 
tinued through successive reigns, the Puritans finally 
triumphed, and the despised sect of Separatists, swollen 
in numbers, and now under the denomination of Inde- 
pendents, with Oliver Cromwell at their head and 
John Milton as his Secretary, ruled England. Thus 
is prefigured the final triumph of all, however few in 
numbers, who sincerely devote themselves to Truth. 

The Pilgrims of Plymouth were among the earliest 
of the Separatists. As such, they knew by bitter ex- 
perience all the sharpness of persecution. Against 
them the men in power raged like the heathen. 
Against them the whole fury of the law was directed. 
Some were imprisoned ; all were impoverished, while 
their name became a by-word of reproach. For safety 
and freedom the little band first sought shelter in 
Holland, where they continued in indigence and obscu- 
rity for more than ten years, when they were inspired 
21* 



246 A FINGER-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH HOCK. 

to seek a home in this unknown Western world. 
Such, in brief, is their history. I could not say more 
of it without intruding upon your time ; I could not 
say less without injustice to them. 

Rarely have austere principles been expressed ^vith 
more gentleness than from their lips. By a covenant 
with the Lord, they had vowed to walk in all His 
ways, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it 
should cost them, — and also to receive whatsoever 
truth should be made known from the written word 
of God. Repentance and prayers, patience and tears, 
wer» their weapons. " It is not with us," said they, 
" as with other men, whom small things can discourage 
or small discontentments cause to wish themselves at 
home again." And then, again, on another occasion, 
their souls were lifted to utterance like this : " When 
we are in our graves it will be all one, whether we 
have lived in plenty or penury, whether we have died 
in a bed of down or on locks of straw." Self-sacrifice 
is never in vain, and they foresaw, with the clearness 
of prophecy, that out of their trials should come a 
transcendent Future. "As one small candle," said an 
early Pilgrim Governor, " may light a thousand, so 
the light kindled here may in some sort shine even to 
the whole nation." 

And yet these men, with such sublime endurance 
and such lofty faith, are among those who are some- 
times called " Puritan knaves " and " knaves- Puritans," 
and who were branded by King James as the " very 
pests in the Church and Commonwealth." The small 
company of our forefathers became the jest and gibe 
of fashion and power. The phrase " men of one idea" 
had not been invented then ; but, in equivalent Ian- 



A FINGER-POINT FROM FLTMOUTn ROCK. 247 

guagc, they were styled " the pinched fanatics of Ley- 
den." A contemporary poet and favorite of Charles 
the First, Thomas Carew, lent his genius to their 
defamation. A masque, from his elegant and careful 
pen, was performed by the monarch and his courtiers, 
wherein the whole plantation of New England was 
turned to royal sport. The jeer broke forth in the 
exclamation, that it had " purged more virulent humors 
from the politic bodies than guaiacum and all the West 
Indian drugs from the natural bodies of the king- 
dom." * 

And these outcasts, despised in their own day by 
the proud and great, are the men whom we have met 
in this goodly number to celebrate ; not for any victory 
of war ; not for any triumph of discovery, science, 
learning, or eloquence ; not for worldly success of any 
kind. How poor are all these things by the side of 
that divine virtue which made them, amidst the re- 
proach, the obloquy and the hardness of the world, 
hold fast to Freedom and Truth ! Sir, if the honors 
of this day are not a mockery ; if they do not expend 
themselves in mere selfish gratulation ; if they are a 
sincere homage to the character of the Pilgrims — and 
I cannot suppose otherwise, — then is it well for us 
to be here. Standing on Plymouth Rock, at their 
great anniversary, we cannot fail to be elevated by 
their example. We see clearly what it has done 
for the world, and what it has done for their 
fame. No pusillanimous soul here to-day will de- 
clare their self-sacrifice, their deviation from received 

* This masque, entitled Caelum Britannicum, was performed 
at Whitehall, 18th February, 1G73. 



248 A FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK. 

opinions, tlicir unquenchable thirst for liberty, an 
error or illusion. From gushing multitudinous hearts 
we now thank these lowly men that they dared to be 
true and brave. Conformity or compromise might, 
perhaps, have purchased for them a profitable peace, 
but not peace of mind ; it might have secured place 
and power, but not repose ; it might have opened a 
present shelter, but not a home in history and in\, 
men's hearts till time shall be no more. All will 
confess the true grandeur of their example, while, in 
vindication of a cherished principle, they stood alone, 
against the madness of men, against the law of the 
land, against their king. Better be the despised Pil- 
grim, a fugitive for freedom, than the halting politician, 
forgetful of principle, " with a Senate at his heels." 

Such, sir, is the voice from Plymouth Rock, as it 
salutes my ears. Others may not hear it. But to me 
it comes in tones which I cannot mistake. I catch its 
words of noble cheer : — 

" New occasions teach new duties ; Time makes ancient good 
uncouth ; 

They must upward still and onward who would keep abreast 
of Truth : 

Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires ! we ourselves must Pil- 
grims be, 

Launch our ]\Iayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate 
winter sea." 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; FREEDOM 
NATIONAL. 



SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST THE 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY NORTH 
OF 36° 30' IN THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, 21ST FEBRU- 
ARY, 1854. 



On the 14th December, 1853, Mr. Dodge of Iowa, asked and 
obtained leave to introduce a Bill to organize the Territory of 
Nebraska, which was read a first and second time, by unanimous 
consent, and referred to the Committee on Territories. This 
was a simple Territorial Bill, in the common form, containing no 
allusion to Slavery, and not in any way undertaking to touch 
the existing Prohibition of Slavery in this Territory. 

On the 4th January, 1854, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, as Chair- 
man of the Committee on Territories, reported this Bill back 
to the Senate, with various amendments, accompanied by a 
Special Report. By this Bill only a single Territory was consti- 
tuted under the name of Nebraska ; the existing Prohibition of 
Slavery was not directly overthrown, but it was declared that 
the States formed out of this Territory, should be admitted into 
the Union " with or without Slavery," as they should desire. 

On the IGth January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, in order to 
accomplish directly what the Bill did only indirectly, gave notice 
of an amendment, to the efiect that the existing Prohibition of 
Slavery " shall not be so construed as to apply to the Territory 
contemplated by this Act, or to any other Territory of the United 
States ; but that the citizens of the several States or Territories 
shall be at liberty to take and hold their Slaves within any of 

[249] 



250 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM; 

the Territories of the United States, or of the States to be formed 
therefrom." 

On the next day, 17th January, Mr. Sumner, in order to keep 
alive the existing prohibition, gave notice of the following amend- 
ment : — 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed 
to abrogate or in any way contravene the Act of March 6, 1820, 
entitled ' An Act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to 
form a constitution and State government, and for the admission 
of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original 
States, and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories ; ' wherein 
it is expressly enacted that ' in all that territory ceded by France 
to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies 
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, 
not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this 
r.ct. Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the 
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly 
convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited.' '* 

It is worthy of remark that at this stage the proposition of Mr. 
Dixon, and also that of Mr. Sumner, were equally condemned 
by the Washington Union, the official organ of the Adminis- 
tration. It had not then been determined to sustain the repeal. 

On the 23d January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on 
Territories, submitted a new Bill as a substitute for that already 
reported. Here was a sudden change, by which the Territory 
was divided into two, Nebraska and Kansas, and the prohibi- 
tion of Slavery was directly overthrown. According to his 
language at the time, there was " incorporated into it one or 
two other amendments, which make the provisions of the Bill 
upon other and more delicate questions, more clear and specific, 
so as to avoid all conflict of opinion." It was formally enun- 
ciated in the Bill, that the prohibition of Slavery " was super- 
seded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly 
called the Compromise Measures, and is hereby declared inoper- 
ative." This, of course, superseded the proposed amendment 
of Mr. Dixon, who subsequently declared his entire assent to the 
Bill in its new form. It also presented the issue dii-ectly raised 
in Mr. Sumner's proposed amendment. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 2ol 

On tlie next day, 24th January, when the amended Bill had 
just been laid iipon the tables of Senators, and witliout alloAving 
the necessary time even for its perusal, Mr. Douglas pressed its 
consideration upon the Senate. After some debate it was post- 
poned until the oUth January, and made the special order from 
day to day until disposed of 

Meanwhile an appeal to the country was put forth by certain 
Senators and Representatives in Congress, calling themselves 
Independent Democrats. It was entitled, " Shall Slavery be 
permitted in Nebraska ? " and proceeded in strong language to 
expose the violation of plighted faith and the wickedness about 
to be perpetrated. This document was extensively cii'culated, 
and did much to arouse the public. 

On the 30th January, the Senate proceeded to the consider- 
ation of the Bill, when Mr. Douglas took the floor, and devoted 
himself to a denunciation of the appeal put forth by the Inde- 
pendent Democrats, characterizing its authors as " Abolition 
confederates," and particularly arraigning Mr. Chase of Ohio, 
and Mr. Sumner, the two Senators who had signed it. "When 
he sat down, Mr. Chase replied at once in admirable remarks to the 
personal matters introduced, and was followed in a few words by 
Mr. Sumnar ; and this was the opening of the great debate which 
occupied fur months the attention of the country. 

Mr. Sumner. — ]Mr. President, before the Senate 
adjourns I crave a single moment. As one of the 
signers of the address referred to by the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Douglas], I accept now openly, before the 
Senate and the country, my full responsibility for it, 
and deprecate no criticism from any quarter. That 
document was put forth in the discharge of a high 
public duty ; on the precipitate introduction into this 
body of a measure which, as it seems to me, is not only 
subversive of an ancient landmark, but hostile to the 
peace, the harmony, and the best interests of the coun- 
try. But, sir, in doing this, I judged the act, and not 



252 THE LANDMARK OP FEEEDOM ; 

its aiitlior. I saw only the enormous proposition, and 
nothing of the Senator. 

The language used is strong, but it is not stronger 
than the exigency required. Here is a measure which 
reverses the time-honored policy of our fathers in the 
restriction of Slavery ; which sets aside the Missouri 
Compromise — a solemn compact, by which all the 
territory ceded by France under the name of Louisiana, 
Avas "forever" consecrated to freedom — and which 
violates, also, the alleged compromises of 1850 ; and all 
this is to open an immense territory to Slavery. Such 
a measure cannot be regarded without emotions too 
strong for speech ; nor can it be justly described in 
common language. It is a soulless, eyeless monster — 
horrid, imshapely, vast ; and this monster is now let 
loose upon the country. 

Allow me one other word of explanation. It is 
true I desired that the consideration of this measure 
should not be pressed at once with indecent haste, as 
was proposed, even before the Senate could read the 
Bill in which it was embodied. I had not forgotten 
that the Missouri Bill, as appears from the Journals of 
Congress, when first introduced in December, 1819, 
was allowed to rest upon the table nearly two months 
before the discussion commenced. The proposition to 
undo the only part of that work which is now in any 
degree within the reach of Congress should be ap- 
proached with even greater caution and reserve. The 
people have a right to be heard on this monstrous 
scheme ; and there is no apology for that driving, gal- 
loping speed, which shall anticipate their voice, and, in 
its consequences, must despoil them of this right. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 253 

The debate was continued from day to day. On the 7th 
February, Mr. Douglas proposed still another change in his Bill. 
There seemed to be a perpetual difficulty in adjusting the lan- 
guage by which the existing prohibition of Slavery should be 
overthrown. He now moved to strike out the words referring to 
this prohibition, and to insert the following : — 

" "Which being inconsistent with the principles of non-intcr 
vention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, 
as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called tlie 
Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void, 
it being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate 
Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom ; 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Constitution of the United States." 

On the 15th February this amendment was adopted by a vote 
of thirty-five yeas to ten nays. The debate was then continuad 
upon the pending substitute reported by the Committee for the 
original Bill. 

On the 21st February, Mr. Sumner took the floor and spoke as 
follows : — 

Mr. President : I approacli this discussion with awe. 
The mighty question, with its untold issues, oppresses 
me. Like a portentous cloud, surchanged with UTCsisti- 
ble storm and ruin, it seems to fill the whole heavens, 
making me painfully conscious how unequal I am to 
the occasion — how unequal, also, is all that I can say, 
to all that I feel. 

In delivering my sentiments here to-day, I sluiU 
speak frankly — according to my con%'ictions, without 
concealment or reserve. But if anything fell from the 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], in opening this 
discussion, which might seem to challenge a personal 
contest, I desire to say that I shall not enter upon it. 
22 



254 THE LANDMARK OF FEEEDOM ; 

Let not a word or a tone pass my lips, to direct atten- 
tion, for a moment, from the transcendent theme, — 
by the side of which Senators and Presidents are but 
dwarfs. I would not forget those amenities which 
belong to this place, and are so well calculated to 
temper the antagonism of debate ; nor can I cease to 
remember and to feel, that, amidst all diversities of 
opinion, we are the representatives of thirty-one sister 
republics, knit together by indissoluble tie, and consti- 
tuting that Plural Unit, which we all embrace by the 
endearing name of country. 

The question presented for your consideration is not 
surpassed in grandeur by any which has occurred in 
our national history since the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. In every aspect it assumes gigantic proportions, 
whether we simply consider the extent of territory it 
concerns, or the public faith and national policy which 
it assails, or that higher question — that Question of 
Questions, as far above others as Liberty is above the 
common things of life — which it opens anew for judg- 
ment. 

It concerns an immense region, larger than the 
original thirteen States, vying in extent with all the 
existing free States — stretching over prairie, field and 
forest — interlaced by silver streams,* skirted by pro- 
tecting mountains, and constituting the heart of the 
North American continent — only a little smaller, let 
me add, than three great European countries combined 
— Italy, Spain and France — each of which, in succes- 
sion, has dominated over the globe. This territory has 
already been likened, on this floor, to the Garden of 
God. The similitude is found, not merely in its 
present pure and virgin character, but in its actual 



FUEEDOM NATIONAL. 255 

geographical situation, occupying central spaces on this 
hemisphere, which, in their general relations, may well 
compare Avith that early Asiatic home. We arc told 
that, 

Southward through Eden went a river large ; 

60 here a stream flows southward which is larger than 
the Euphrates. And here, too, amidst all the smiling 
products of nature, lavished by the hand of God, is the 
lofty tree of Liberty, planted by our fathers, which, 
without exaggeration, or even imagination, may be 
likened to 

the tree of life. 



High eminent, blooming ambrosial fruit 
Of vegetable gold. 

It is with regard to this territory, that you are now 
called to exercise the grandest function of the lawgiver, 
by establishing those rules of polity which will deter- 
mine its future character. As the twig is bent the tree 
inclines ; and the influences impressed upon the early 
days of an empire, like those upon a child, are of incon- 
ceivable importance to its future weal or woe. The Bill 
now before us, proposes to organize and equip two new 
territorial establishments, with Governors, Secretaries, 
Legislative Councils, Legislators, Judges, Marshals, and 
the whole machinery of civil society. Such a measure, 
at any time, would deserve the most careful attention. 
But, at the present moment, it justly excites a peculiar 
interest, from the effort made — on pretences unsus- 
tained by facts — in violation of solemn covenant, and 
in disregard of the early principles of our fathers — to 
open this inmiense region to Slavery. 



256 THE LANDMARK OF FKEEDOM ; 

According to existing law, this territory is now 
guarded against Slavery by a positive proldbition, 
embodied in the Act of Congress, approved 6th March, 
1820, preparatory to the admi'Ssion of Missouri into 
the Union, as a sister State, and in the following ex- 
plicit words : 

♦'Sec. 8. Be it further enacted^ That in all that territory 
ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louis- 
iana, which lies north SG*^ 30' of north latitude, not included 
within the limits of the State contemplated by this Act, slavery 
AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, Otherwise than as the punish- 
ment of crimes, shall be, and is hereby, FOREVER PRO- 
HIBITED." 

It is now proposed to set aside this prohibition ; but 
there seems to be a singular indecision as to the way 
in which the deed shall be done. From the time of its 
first introduction, in the report of the Committee on 
Territories, the proposition has assumed different 
shapes ; and it promises to assume as many as Pro- 
teus ; now, one thing in form, and now, another ; now, 
like a river, and then, like flame ; but, in every form 
and shape, identical in substance ; with but one end 
and aim — its be-all and end-all — the overthrow of 
the Prohibition of Slavery. At first, it proposed 
simply to declare, that the States fofmed out of this 
territory should be admitted into the Union, " with or 
without Slavery," and did not directly assume to touch 
this prohibition. For some reason this was not satis- 
factory, and then it was precipitately proposed to 
declare, that the prohibition in the Missouri Act " was 
superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, 
commonly called the Compromise Measures, and is 
hereby declared inoperative." But this would not 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 257 

do ; and it is now proposed to enact, that the prohi- 
bition, " being inconsistent with the principles of non- 
intervention, by Congress, with Slavery in the States 
and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 
1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is 
hereby declared inoperative and void." 

All this is to be done on pretences founded upon the 
Slavery enactments of 1850, thus seeking, with mingled 
audacity and cunning, " by indirection to find direction 
out." Now, sir, I am not here to speak in behalf of 
those measures, or to lean in any way upon their sup- 
port. Relating to different subject-matters, contained 
in different acts, which prevailed successively, at dif 
ferent times, and by different votes — some persons 
voting for one measure, and some voting for another, 
and very few voting for all — they cannot be regarded 
as a unit, embodying conditions of compact, or com- 
promise, if you please, adopted equally by all, and 
therefore obligatory on all. But since this broken 
series of measures has been adduced as an apology for 
the proposition now before us, I desire to say, that, 
such as they are, they cannot, by any effort of interpre- 
tation, by any distorting wand of power, by any per- 
verse alchemy, be transmuted into a repeal of that 
original Prohibition of Slavery. 

On this head there are several points to which I 
would merely call attention, and then pass on. First : 
The Slavery enactments of 1850 did not pretend, in 
terms, to touch, much less to change, the condition of 
the Louisiana Territory, which was already fixed by 
Congressional enactment. The two transactions related 
to different subject-matters. Secondly: The enact- 
ments do not directly touch the subject of Slavery, 
22* 



258 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

during the Territorial existence of Utah and New 
Mexico ; but they provide prospectively, that, when 
admitted as States, they shall be received "with or 
without Slavery." Here certainly can be no overthrow^ 
of an Act of Congress which directly concerns a Ter- 
ritory during its Territorial existence. Thirdly : 
During all the discussion of these measures in Congress, 
and afterwards before the people, and through the 
public press, at the North and the South alike, no 
person was heard to intimate that the Prohibition of 
Slavery in the Missouri Act was in any way disturbed. 
And, fourthly. The acts themselves contain a formal 
provision, that " nothing herein contained shall be 
construed to impair or qualify anything " in a certain 
article of the resolutions annexing Texas, wherein it is 
expressly declared, that in territory north of the 
Missouri Compromise line, " Slavery, or involuntary 
servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited." 

But I do not dwell on these things. These pre- 
tences have been already amply refuted by able Sena- 
tors who have preceded me. It is clear, beyond 
contradiction, that the Prohibition of Slavery in this 
Territory has not been superseded or in any way 
contravened by the Slavery Acts of 1850. The propo- 
sition before you is, therefore, original in its character, 
without sanction from any former legislation, and it 
must, accordingly, be judged by its merits, as an origi- 
nal proposition. 

Here, sir, let it be remembered, that the friends of 
Freedom are not open to any charge of aggression. 
They are now standing on the defensive, guarding the 
early intrenchments thrown up by our fathers. No 
proposition to abolish Slavery anywhere is now before 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 259 

you ; but, on tlio contrary, a proposition to abolish 
Freedom. The term Abolitionist, which is so often 
applied in reproach, justly belongs, on this occasion, 
to him who would overthrow this well-established 
landmark. He is, indeed, no Abolitionist of Slavery ; 
let him be called, sir, an Abolitionist of Freedom. 
For myself, whether with many or few, my place is 
taken. Even if alone, my feeble arm should not be 
wanting as a bar against this outrage. 

On two distinct grounds, " both strong against the 
deed," I arraign it : Fi?^st, in the name of Public 
Faith, as an infraction of solemn obligations, assumed 
beyond recall by the South, on the admission of Mis- 
souri into the Union as a Slave State. Secondly, I 
arraign it, in the name of Freedom, as an unjustifiable 
departure from the original Anti-slavery policy of our 
fathers. These two heads I propose to consider in 
their order, glancing under the latter at the objections 
to the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories. 

And here, sir, before I approach the argument, 
indulge me with a few preliminary words on the 
charactor of this proposition. Slavery is the forcible 
subjection of one human being, in person, labor and 
property, to the will of another. In this simple state- 
ment is involved its whole injustice. There is no 
offence aorainst reliorion, against morals, against hu- 
manity, which may not, in the license of this enormity, 
stalk " unwhipt of justice." For the husband and 
wife there is no marriage ; for the mother there is no 
assurance that her infant child will not be ravished 
from her br?ast ; for all who bear the name of Slave, 
there is nothin;; that they can call their own. With- 



260 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

out a father, without a mother, almost without a God, 
the slave has nothing but a master. It would be con- 
trary to that Rule of Right, which is ordained by God, 
if such a system, though mitigated often by a patri- 
archal kindness, and by a plausible physical comfort, 
could be otherwise than pernicious in its influences. 
It is confessed that the master suffers not less than 
the slave. And this is not all. The whole social 
fabric is disorganized ; labor loses its dignity ; industry 
sickens ; education finds no schools, and all the land 
of Slavery is impoverished. And now, sir, when the 
conscience of mankind is at last aroused to these 
things ; when, throughout the civilized world, a slave- 
dealer is a by-word and a reproach, we, as a nation, 
are about to open a new market to the traffickers in 
flesh, that haunt the shambles of the South. Such an 
act, at this time, is removed from all reach of that 
palliation often vouchsafed to Slavery. This wrong, 
we are speciously told, by those who seek to defend 
it, is not our original sin. It was entailed upon us, 
so we are instructed, by our ancestors ; and the 
responsibility is often, with exultation, thrown upon 
the mother country. Now, without stopping to in- 
quire into the value of this apology, which is never 
adduced in behalf of other abuses, and which availed 
nothing against that kingly power imposed by the 
mother country, w^hich our fathers overthrew, it is 
sufficient for the present purpose to know, that it is 
now proposed to make Slavery our own original act. 
Here is a fresh case of actual transgression, w^hich Ave 
cannot cast upon the shoulders of any progenitors, nor 
upon any mother country, distant in time or place. 
The Congress of the United States, the people of the 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 2G1 

United States, at this day, in this Taunted period of 
light, wall be responsible for it, so that it shall be said 
hereafter, so long as the dismal history of Slavery is 
read, that, in the year of Christ, 1854, a new and 
deliberate act was passed, by which a vast Territory 
was opened to its inroads. 

Alone in the company of nations does our country 
assume this hateful championship. In despotic Russia, 
the serfdom which constitutes the " peculiar institu- 
tion " of that great empire, is never allowed to travel 
with the imperial flag, according to the American pre- 
tension, into provinces newly acquired by the common 
blood and treasure, but is carefully restricted by posi- 
tive prohibition, in harmony with the general con- 
science, within its ancient confines ; and this prohibi- 
tion — the Wilmot proviso of Russia — is rigorously 
enforced on every side, in all thfe provinces, as in 
Besarabia on the south, and Poland on the w^est, so 
that, in fact, no Russian nobleman has been able to 
move into these important territories with his slaves. 
Thus Russia speaks for Freedom, and disowns the 
slave-holding dogma of our country. Far away in the 
East, at the " gateways of the day," in effeminate 
India, Slavery has been condemned. In Constantinople, 
the queenly seat of the most powerful Mohammedan 
empire, where barbarism still mingles with civilization, 
the Ottoman Sultan has fastened upon it the stigma of 
disapprobation. The Barbary States of Africa, occu- 
pying the same parallels of latitude with the Slave 
States of our Union, and resembling them in the 
nature of their boundaries, their productions, their 
climate, and the " peculiar institution," which sought 
shelter in both, have been changed into Abolitionists. 



262 THE LANDMAKK OF FEEEDOM ; 

Algiers, seated on the line of 36° 30', has been dedi- 
cated to Freedom. Morocco, by its untutored ruler, 
has expressed its desire, stamped in the formal terms 
of a treaty, that the very name of Slavery may perish 
from the minds of men ; and only recently, from the 
Bey of Tunis, has proceeded that noble act, by which, 
" in honor of God, and to distinguish man from the 
brute creation " — I quote his own words — he de- 
creed its total abolition throughout his dominions. 
Let Christian America be willing to be taught by these 
examples. God forbid that our republic — " heir of 
all the ages, foremost in the files of time " — should 
adopt anew the barbarism which they have renounced. 
As the effort now making is extraordinary in char- 
acter, so no assumption seems too extraordinary to be 
wielded in its support. The primal truth of the 
Equality of men, proclaimed in our Declaration of 
Independence, has been assailed, and this Great Char- 
ter of our country discredited. Sir, you and I will 
soon pass away, but that charter will continue to stand 
above impeachment or question. The Declaration of 
Independence was a Declaration of Rights, and the 
language employed, though general in its character, 
must obviously be restrained within the design and 
sphere of a Declaration of Rights, involving no such 
absurdity as was attributed to it yesterday by the 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Petti t]. Sir, it is a 
palpable fact that men are not born equal in physical 
strength or in mental capacities, in beauty of form or 
health of body. These mortal cloaks of flesh diff'er, as 
do these worldly garments. Diversity or inequality, 
in these respects, is the law of creation. But as God 
is no respecter of persons, and as all are equal in His 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 263 

sight, whether Dives or Lazarus, master or slave, so 
are all equal in natural inborn rights ; and pardon me 
if I say, it is a vain sophism to adduce in argument 
against this vital axiom of Liberty, the physical or 
mental inequalities by which men are characterized, or 
the unhappy degradation to which, in violation of a 
common brotherhood, they are doomed. To deny the 
Declaration of Independence is to rush on the bosses 
of the shield of the Almighty, — which, in all respects, 
the supporters of this measure seem to do. 

To the delusive suggestion of the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Badger], that, by the overthrow 
of this prohibition, the number of slaves will not be 
increased ; that there will be simply a beneficent diffu- 
sion of Slavery, and not its extension, I reply at once, 
that this argument, if of any value — if not mere words 
and nothing else — would equally justify and require 
the overthrow of the Prohibition of Slavery in the Free 
States, and indeed, everywhere throughout the world. 
All the dikes which, in different countries, from time 
to time, with the march of civilization, have been 
painfully set up against the inroads of this evil, must 
be removed, and every land opened anew to its de- 
structive flood. It is clear, beyond dispute, that by 
the overthrow of this prohibition. Slavery will be 
quickened, and slaves themselves will be multiplied, 
while new room and verge will be secured for the 
gloomy operations of slave law, under which free labor 
will droop, and a vast territory be smitten with ster- 
ility. Sir, a blade of grass would not grow where the 
horse of Attila had trod ; nor can any true prosperity 
spring up in the foot-prints of the slave. 

But it is argued, that slaves will not be carried into 



264 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Nebraska in large numbers, and that, therefore, the 
question is of small practical moment. My distin- 
guished colleague [Mr. Everett], in his eloquent 
speech, hearkened to this apology, and allowed him- 
self, while upholding the prohibition, to disparage its 
importance in a manner, from which I feel obliged 
kindly, but most strenuously, to dissent. Sir, the 
very census attests its vital consequence. There is 
Missouri, at this moment, with Illinois on the east and 
Nebraska on the west, all covering nearly the same 
spaces of latitude, and resembling each other in soil, 
climate and natural productions. Mark now the con- 
trast ! By the potent efficacy of the ordinance of the 
Northwestern Territory, Illinois is a free State, while 
Missouri has eighty-seven thousand four hundred and 
twenty-two slaves ; and the simple question which 
challenges an answer is, whether Nebraska shall be 
preserved in the condition of Illinois, or surrendered 
to that of Missouri ? Surely this cannot be treated 
lightly. But for myself, I am unwilling to measure 
the exigency of the prohibition by the number of per- 
sons, whether many or few, whom it may protect. 
Human rights, whether in a vast multitude or a soli- 
tary individual, are entitled to an equal and unhesitat- 
ing support. In this spirit, the flag of our country 
only recently became the impen3trablc panoply of 
a homeless wanderer, who claimed its protection in 
a distant sea ; and in this spirit I am constrained to 
declare that there is no place accessible to human 
avarice, or human lust, or human force — whether in 
the lowest valley, or on the loftiest mountain top, 
whether on the broad flower-spangled prairies, or the 
snowy caps of the Rocky Mountains — where the pro- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 265 

hibitlon of Slavery, like the commandments of tho 
Decalogue, should not go. 

I. And now, sir, in the name of that Public Faith, 
which is the very ligament of civil society, and which 
the great Roman orator tells us it is detestable to 
break even with an enemy, I arraign this scheme, and 
hold it up to the judgment of the country. There is 
an early Italian story of an experienced citizen, who, 
when told by his nephew that he had been studying, 
at the University of Bologna, the science of right, said 
in reply, " You have spent your time to little purpose. 
It would have been better had you learned the science 
of might, for that is worth two of the other ; " and the 
bystanders of that day all agreed that the veteran 
spoke the truth. I begin, sir, by assuming that honor- 
able Senators will not act in this spirit — that they 
will not substitute might for right — that they will 
not wantonly and flagitiously discard any obligation, 
pledge, or covenant, because they chance to possess 
the power ; but that, as honest men, desirous to do 
right, they ■\\ill confront this question. 

Sir, the proposition before you involves not merely 
the repeal of an existing law, but the infraction of 
solemn obligations originally proposed and assumed 
by the South, after a protracted and embittered con- 
test, as a covenant of peace — with regard to certain 
specified territory therein described, namely : " All 
that territory ceded by Franco to the United States, 
under the name of Louisiana ; " according to which, 
in consideration of the admission into the Union of 
Missouri as a slave State, Slavery was forever prohib- 
ited in all the remaining part of this territory which 
23 



266 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

lies north of 36° 30'. Tins arrangement, between 
different sections of the Union — the slave States 
of the first part and the free States of the second 
part — though usually known as the Missouri Com- 
promise, was at the time styled a compact. In its 
stipulations for Slavery, it was justly repugnant to 
the conscience of the North, and ought never to have 
been made ; but on that side it has been performed. 
And now the unperformed outstanding obligations to 
Freedom, originally proposed and assumed by the 
South, are resisted. 

Years have passed since these obligations were 
embodied in the legislation of Congress, and accepted 
by the country. Meanwhile, the statesmen by whom 
they were framed and vindicated have, one by one, 
dropped from this earthly sphere. Their living voices 
cannot now be heard, to plead for the conservation of 
that Public Faith to which they were pledged. But 
this extraordinary lapse of time, with the complete 
fruition by one party of all the benefits belonging to it, 
under the compact, gives to the transaction an added 
and most sacred strength. Prescription steps in and 
with new bonds, confirms the original work, to the 
end that while men are mortal, controversies shall not 
be immortal. Death, with inexorable scythe, has 
mowed down the authors of this compact ; but, ^vith 
conservative hour-glass, the dread destroyer has counted 
out a succession of years, which now defile before us, 
like so many sentinels, to guard the sacred landmark 
of Freedom. 

A simple statement of facts, derived from the jour- 
nals of Congress and contemporary records, will show 
the origin and nature of this compact, the influence by 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 267 

which, it was established, and the obligations which it 
imposed. 

As early as 1818, at the first session of the fifteenth 
Congress, a Bill was reported to the House of Ilcprc- 
sentatives, authorizing the people of the Missouri Ter- 
ritory to form a Constitution and State Government, 
for the admission of such State into the Union ; but, 
at that session, no final action was had thereon. At 
the next session, in February, 1819, the Bill was again 
brought forward, when an eminent Representative of 
New York, whose life has been spared till this last 
summer, Mr. James Tallmadge, moved a clause i^ro- 
hibiting any further introduction of slaves into the 
proposed State, and securing Freedom to the children 
born within the State after its admission into the 
Union, on attaining twenty-five years of age. This 
important proposition, which assumed a power not 
only to prohibit the ingress of Slavery into the State 
itself, hut also to abolish it there, was passed in the 
affirmative, after a vehement debate of three days. 
On a division of the question, the first part, prohibit- 
ing the further introduction of slaves, was adopted by 
eighty-seven yeas to seventy-six nays ; the second 
part, pro\dding for the cmancij^ation of children, was 
adopted by eighty-two yeas to seventy-eight nays. 
Other propositions to thwart the operation of these 
amendments were voted down, and on the 17th Feb- 
ruary the Bill was read a third time, and passed with 
these important restrictions. 

In the Senate, after debate, the provision for the 
emancipation of children was struck out by thirty-one 
yeas to seven nays ; the other provision, against the 
further introduction of Slavery, was struck out by 



268 THE LANDMARK OF FKEEDOM ; 

twenty- two yeas to sixteen nays. Thus emasculated, 
the Bill w^as returned to the House, which, on 2d March, 
by a vote of seventy-eight nays to seventy-six yeas, 
refused its concurrence. The Senate adhered to their 
amendments, and the House, by seventy-eight yeas to 
sixty-six nays, adhered to their disagreement ; and so 
at this session the Missouri Bill was lost ; and here 
was a temporary triumph for Freedom. 

Meanwhile, the same controversy was renewed on 
the Bill pending at the same time for the organization 
of the Territory of Arkansas, then known as the south- 
ern part of the Territory of Missouri. The restrictions 
already adopted in the Missouri Bill were moved by 
Mr. Taylor, of New York, subsequently Speaker ; but 
after at least six close votes, on the yeas and nays, in 
one of which the House was equally divided, eighty-eight 
yeas to eighty-eight nays, they were lost. Another 
proposition by Mr. Taylor, simpler in form, that Slavery 
should not hereafter be introduced into this Territory, 
was lost by ninety nays to eighty-six yeas ; and the 
Arkansas Bill on 2oth February was read the third 
time and passed. In the Senate, Mr. Burrill, of Rhode 
Island, moved, as an amendment, the prohibition of 
the further introduction of Slavery into this Territory, 
which was lost by nineteen nays to fourteen yeas. 
And thus, without any provision for Freedom, Arkansas 
was organized as a Territory ; and here was a triumph 
of Slavery. 

At this same session, Alabama was admitted as a 
slave State, without any restriction or objection. 

It was in the discussion on the Arkansas Bill, at this 
session, that we find the earliest suggestion of a Com- 
promise. Defeated in his efforts to prohibit Slavery in 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 269 

this Territory, Mr. Taylor stated that " he thought it 
important that some line should be designated beyond 
Avhich Slavery should not be permitted," and he moved 
its prohibition hereafter in all territories of the United 
States north of 36° 30' north latitude, without any 
exception of Missouri, loliich is north of this line. 
This proposition, though wilhdra\vn after debate, was 
at once welcomed by Mr. Livermore, of New Hamp- 
shire, " as made in the true spirit of compromise." It 
was opposed by Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, on behalf of 
Slavery, who avowed himself against every restriction ; 
and also by Mr. Ogle, of Pennsylvania, on behalf of 
Freedom, who was " against any Compromise by which 
Slavery, in any of the Territories, should be recognized 
or sanctioned by Congress." In this spirit it was op- 
posed and supported by others, among whom was 
General Harrison, afterwards President of the United 
States, who " assented to the expediency of establish- 
ing some such line of discrimination ; " but proposed 
a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines, 
thus constituting the northern, and not the southern 
boundary of Missouri, the partition line between Free- 
dom and Slavery. 

But this idea of Compromise, though suggested by 
jMr. Taylor, was thus early adopted and vindicated in 
'this very debate, by an eminent character, — Mr. Louis 
McLane, of Delaware, — who has since held high office 
in the country, and enjoyed no common measure of 
public confidence. Of all the leading actors in these 
early scenes, he and Mr. Mercer alone are yet spared. 
On this occasion he said : 

"The fixing of a line on the west of the Mississippi, north of 
which Slavery shall not be tolerated, had iilways been with him a 
23* 



270 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDGM ; 

favorite policy, and he hoped the day was not distant when, upon 
principles of fair compromise, it might constitutionally be effected. 
The present attempt he regarded as premature." 

'After opposing the restriction on Missouri, he con- 
cluded by declaring : 

" At the same time, I do not mean to abandon the policy to 
•which I alluded in the commencement of my remarks. I think 
it but fair that both sections of the Union should be accommo- 
dated on this subject, with regard to which so much feeling has 
been manifested. The same great motives of policy which recon- 
ciled and harmonized the jarring and discordant elements of our 
system originally, and which enabled the framers of our happy 
Constitution to compromise the different interests which then 
prevailed on this and other subjects, if properly cherished by us, 
will enable us to achieve similar objects. If we me;t upon prin- 
ciples of reciprocity, we cannot fail to do justice to all. It has 
already been avowed, by gentlemen on this floor from the South 
and the West, that they will agree upon a line which shall divide 
the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. It is this 
projjosition I am anxious to effect ; but I wish to effect it by 
some COMPACT which shall be binding upon all parties, and all 
subsequent Legislatures ; which cannot be changed, and Avill 
not fluctuate with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to 
which this empire, in its march, must be destined. There is a 
vast and immense tract of country west of the Mississippi yet to 
be settled, and intimately connected with the Northern section 
of the Union, upon which this compromise can be effected.''^ 

The suggestions of Compromise were at this time 
vain ; each party was determined. The North, by the 
prevailing voice of its representatives, claimed all for 
Freedom ; the South, by its potential command of the 
Senate, claimed all for Slavery. 

The report of this debate aroused the country. For 
the first time in our history, Freedom, after an ani- 
mated struggle, hand to hand, had been kept in check 
by Slavery. The original policy of our fathers in the 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 271 

restriction of slavery was suspended, and this giant 
"svTong threatened to stalk into all the broad national 
domain. Men at the North were humbled and amazed. 
The imperious demands of Slavery seemed incredible. 
Meanwhile, the whole subject was adjourned from 
Congress to the people. Through the press and at 
public meetings, an earnest voice was raised against 
the admission of Missouri into the Union without the 
restriction of Slavery. Judges left the bench and 
clergymen the pulpit, to swell the indignant protest 
which went up from good men, without distinction of 
party or of pursuit. 

The movement was not confined to a few persons, 
nor to a few States. A public meeting at Trenton, in 
New Jersey, was followed by others in New York and 
Philadelphia, and finally at Worcester, Salem and 
Boston, where Committees were organized to rally the 
country. The citizens of Baltimore, in public meeting 
at the court-house with the Mayor in the chair, re- 
solved that the future admission of slaves into the States 
hereafter formed west of the Mississippi, ought to be 
prohibited by Congress. Villages, towns and cities, 
by memorial, petition and prayer, called upon Congress 
to maintain the great principle of the prohibition of 
Slavery. The same principle was also commended by 
the resolutions of State Legislatures ; and Pennsyl- 
vania, inspired by the teachings of Franklin and the 
convictions of the respectable denomination of Friends, 
unanimously asserted at once the right and the duty 
of Congress to prohibit Slavery west of the Mississippi, 
and solemnly appealed to her sister States, " to refuse 
to covenant with crime." New Jersey and Delaware 
followed, both also imanimously. Ohio asserted the 



272 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM; 

same principle : so did also Indiana. The latter State, 
not content with providing for the future, severely 
censured one of its Senators, for his vote to organize 
Arkansas without the prohibition of Slavery. The reso- 
lutions of New York were reinforced by the recom- 
mendation of De Witt Clinton. 

Amidst these excitements, Congress came together 
in December, 1819, taking possession of these Halls 
of the Capitol for the first time since their desolation 
by the British. On the day after the receipt of the 
President's Message, two several Committees of the 
House were constituted, one to consider the application 
of Maine, and the other of Missouri, to enter the Union 
as separate and independent States. With only the 
delay of a single day, the bill for the admission of 
Missouri was reported to the House without the restric- 
tion of Slavery ; but, as if shrinking from the immediate 
discussion of the great question it involved, afterwards, 
on the motion of Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, its consider- 
ation was postponed for several weeks ; all which, be 
it observed, is in open contrast with the manner in 
which the present, discussion has been precipitated 
upon Congress. Meanwhile, the Maine Bill, when 
reported to the House, was promptly acted upon, and 
sent to the Senate. 

In the interval between the report of the Missouri 
Bill and its consideration by the House, a Committee 
was constituted on motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, 
to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the intro- 
duction of Slavery into the Territories west of the 
Mississippi. This Committee, at the end of a fortnight, 
was discharged from further consideration of the sub- 
ject, which, it was understood, would enter into the 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 273 

postponed debate on the Missouri Bill. This early 
effort to interdict Slavery in the Territories by a 
special law, is worthy of notice, on account of some of 
the expressions of opinion which it drew forth. In the 
course of his remarks, Mr. Taylor declared, that " he 
presumed there were no members — he knew of none 
— who doubted the constitutional power of Congress 
to impose such a restriction on the Territories." 

A generous voice from Virginia recognized at once 
the right and duty of Congress. This was from 
Charles Fenton Mercer, who declared that "When 
the question proposed should come fairly before the 
House, he should support the proposition. He should 
record his vote against suffering the dark cloud of 
inhumanity, which now darkened his country, from 
rolling on beyond the peaceful shores of the Missis- 
sippi." 

At length, on the 26th January, 1820, the House 
resolved itself into a Committee of the AYhole on the 
Missouri Bill, and proceeded with its discussion, day 
by day, till the 28th February, when it was reported 
back with amendments. But meanwhile the same 
question was presented to the Senate, where a conclu- 
sion was reached earlier than in the House. A clause 
for the admission of Missouri was moved by way of 
tack to the Maine Bill. To this an amendment was 
moved by ]\Ir. Roberts, of Pennsylvania, prohibiting 
the further introduction of Slavery into the State, 
which, after a fortnight's debate, was defeated by 
twenty-seven nays to sixteen yeas. 

The debate in the Senate was of unusual interest 
and splendor. It was especially illustrated by an effort 
of transcendent power from that great lawyer and 



274 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

orator, William Pinkney. Recently returned from a 
succession of missions to foreign courts, and at this 
time the acknowledged chief of the American bar, 
particularly skilled in questions of constitutional law, 
his course as a Senator from Maryland was calculated 
to produce a profound impression. In a speech which 
for two days drew to this chamber an admiring throng, 
and at the time was fondly compared with the best 
examples of Greece and Rome, he first authoritatively 
proposed and developed the Missouri Compromise. 
His masterly effort was mainly directed against the 
restriction upon Missouri, but it began and ended 
with the idea of compromise. " Notwithstanding," he 
says, " occasional appearances of rather an unfavorable 
description, I have long since persuaded myself that 
the Missouri question, as it is called, might be laid to 
rest, with innocence and safety, by some conciliatory 
Compromise at least, by which, as is our duty, we 
might reconcile the extremes of conflicting views and 
feelings, without any sacrifice of constitutional princi- 
ples." And he closed with the hope that the restric- 
tion on Missouri would not be pressed, but that the 
whole question " might be disposed of in a manner 
satisfactory to all, hy a positive prohibition of Slavery 
in the Territory to the north and ivest of Missouri. ^^ 

This authoritative proposition of Compromise, from 
the most powerful advocate of the unconditional admis- 
sion of Missouri, was made in the Senate on the 21st 
January. From various indications, it seems to have 
found prompt favor in that body. Finally, on the 17th 
February, the union of Maine and Missouri in one Bill 
prevailed there, by twenty-three yeas to twenty-one 
nays. On the next day, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, who 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 275 

had always voted with the South against any restriction 
upon Missouri, introduced the famous clause prohibit- 
ing Slavery north of 36° 30', which now constitutes 
the eighth section of the Missouri Act. An effort was 
made to include the Arkansas Territory within this 
prohibition ; but the South united against this exten- 
sion of the area of Freedom, and it was defeated by 
twenty- four nays to twenty yeas. The prohibition, as 
moved by Mr. Thomas, then prevailed, by thirty-four 
yeas to only ten nays. Among those in the affirmative 
were both the Senators from each of the Slave States, 
Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland 
and Alabama, and also one of the Senators from each 
of the Slave States, Mississippi and North Carolina, 
including in the honorable list the familiar names of 
William Pinkney, James Brown and William Rufus 
King. 

This Bill, thus amended, is the first legislative em- 
bodiment of the Missouri Compact or Compromise, the 
essential conditions of which were, the admission of 
Missouri as a State without any restriction of Slavery ; 
and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining 
territory of Louisiana north of 36° 30'. Janus-faced, 
with one front towards Freedom and another towards 
Slavery, this must not be confounded with the simpler 
proposition of Mr. Taylor, at the last session, to pro- 
hibit Slavery in all the territory north of 36° 30', 
including Missouri. The Compromise now brought 
forward — following the early lead of Mr. McLane — 
both recognized and prohibited Slavery north of 36° 
30'. Here, for the first time, these two opposite prin- 
ciples commingled in one legislative channel ; and it is 
immediately subsequent to this junction that we dis- 



276 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

cern tlie precise responsibility assumed by different 
parties. And now observe the indubitable and decisive 
fcict. This Bill, thus composed, containing these two 
elements — this double measure — finally passed the 
Senate by a test vote of twenty-four yeas to twenty 
nays. The yeas embraced every Southern Senator, ex- 
cept Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and William 
Smith, of South Carolina. 

Mr. Butler, of S. C. (interrupting). Mr. Gaillard, 
of South Carolina, voted with Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SuMisTER. No, sir. The journal, which I now 
hold in my hand, shows that he voted for the Compro- 
mise. I repeat, that the yeas on this vital question 
embraced every Southern Senator, except Mr. Macon 
and Mr. Smith. The nays embraced every Northern 
Senator, except the two Senators from Illinois and one 
Senator from Rhode Island, and one from New Hamp- 
shire. And this, sir, is the record of the first stage 
in the adoption of the Missouri Compromise. First 
openly announced and ^dndicated on the floor of the 
Senate, by a distinguished Southern statesman, it was 
forced on the North by an almost unanimous Southern 
vote. 

While things had thus culminated in the Senate, 
discussion was still proceeding in the other House on 
the original Missouri Bill. This was for a moment 
arrested by the reception from the Senate of the Maine 
Bill, embodying the Missouri Compromise. Upon this 
the debate was brief and the decision prompt. But 
here, even at this stage, as at every other, a Southern 
statesman intervenes. Mr. Smith, of Maryland, for 
many years an eminent Senator of that State, but at 
this time a representative, while opposing the restric- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 277 

tion of Missouri, vindicated the prohibition of Slavery 
in the Territories, and thus practically accepted the 
Compromise : 

'* Mr. S. Smith said that he rose principally with a view to 
state bis understanding of the proposed amendment, viz. : That 
it retained the boundaries of Missouri as delineated in the Bill ; 
that it prohibited the admission of slaves west of the west line of 
Missouri, and north of the north line ; that it did not interfere 
with the Territory of Arkansas, or the uninhabited land west 
thereof. He thought the proposition not exceptionable, but 
doubted the propriety of its forming a part of the Bill. He 
considered the power of Congress over the Territory as supreme, 
unlimited, before its admission ; that Congress could impose on 
its Territories any restriction it thought proper ; that if citizens 
go into the Territories thus restricted, they cannot carry with 
them slaves. They will be without slaves, and will be educated 
with prejudices and habits such as will exclude all desire, on 
their part, to admit Slavery when they shall become sufficiently 
numerous to be admitted as a State. And this is the advantage 
proposed by the amendment." 

But the House was not disposed to abandon the 
substantial restriction of Slavery in Missouri, for what 
seemed its unsubstantial prohibition in an unsettled 
Territory. The Compromise was rejected, and the Bill 
left in its original condition. This was done by large 
votes. Even the prohibition of Slavery was thrown 
out by one hundred and fifty-nine yeas to eighteen 
nays, both the Xorth and the South uniting against it ; 
though, in this small but persistent minority, we find 
two Southern statesmen, Samuel Smith and Charles 
Fenton Mercer. The Senate, on receiving the Bill 
back from the House, insisted on their amendments. 
The House in turn insisted on their disagreement. 
According to parliamentary usage, a Committee of 
24 



278 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Conference "between the two Houses was appointed. 
Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, Mr. Pinkney, of Marylandj 
and Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, composed this 
important Committee on the part of the Senate ; and 
Mr. Holmes, of Maine, Mr. Taylor, of New York, Mr. 
Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of Massa- 
chusetts, and Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, on the part 
of the House. 

Meanwhile, the House had voted on the original 
Missouri Bill. An amendment, peremptorily inter- 
dicting all Slavery in the new State, was adopted by 
ninety-four yeas to eighty-six nays ; and thus the Bill 
passed the House, and was sent to the Senate on the 
1st March. Thus, after an exasperated and protracted 
discussion, the two Houses were at a dead-lock. The 
double-headed Missouri Compromise was the ulti- 
matum of the Senate. The restriction of Slavery in 
Missouri, involving, of course, its prohibition in all 
the unorganized Territories, was the ultimatum of the 
House. 

At this stage, on the 2d March, the Committee 
of Conference made their report, which was urged at 
once upon the House by Mr. Lowndes, the distin- 
guished representative from South Carolina, and one 
of her most precious sons. And here sir, at the men- 
tion of this name, still so fragrant among us, let me 
for one moment stop this current of history, to express 
the tender admiration with which I am inspired. Mr. 
Lowndes died before my memory of political events ; 
but he is still endeared by the self-abnegation of a 
single utterance — that the Presidency is an office not 
to he sought or declined — a sentiment, which, by its 
beauty, in one part at least, shames the vileness of 



FEEEDOil NATIONAL. 279 

aspiration in our day, and will ever live as an amaran- 
thine fioNver. Such a man, on any occasion, would be 
a host ; but he now threw his great soul into the 
work. He even objected to a motion to print the 
report, on the ground " that it would imply a deter- 
mination in the House to delay a decision of the 
subject to-day, which he had hoped the House was 
fully prepared for." The question then came on 
striking out the restriction in the Missouri Bill. The 
report in the National Intelligencer says : 

" Mr. Lowndes spoke briefly in support of the Compromise 
recommended by the Committee of Conference, and urged with 
great earnestness the propriety of a decision which would re- 
store tranquillity to the country, which was demanded by every 
consideration of discretion, of moderation, of wisdom and of 
virtue. 

" Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, followed on the same side with 
great earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when he 
was compelled, by indisposition, to resume his seat." 

Such efforts, pressed with Southern ardor, were not 
unavailing. In conformity with the report of the 
Committee, the whole question was forthwith put at 
rest. Maine and Missouri were each admitted into 
the Union as independent States. The restriction of 
Slavery in Missouri was abandoned by a vote in the 
House of ninety yeas to eighty-seven nays ; and the 
prohibition of Slavery in Territories north of 36° 30', 
exclusive of Missouri, was substituted by a vote of 
one hundred and thirty-four yeas to forty-two nays. 
Among the distinguished Southern names in the 
affirmative, are Louis McLanc, of Delaware ; Samuel 
Smith, of Maryland ; William Lowndes, of South 
Carolina ; and Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. 



280 THE landmark: of fbeedom; 

The title of tlie Missouri Bill was amended in con- 
formity with this prohibition, by adding the words, 
*' and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories." Tlie 
hills then passed both Houses without a division ; and, 
on the morning of the 3d March, 1820, the National 
Intelligencer contained an exulting article, entitled : 
" The Question Settled." 

Another paper, published in Baltimore, immediately 
after the passage of the Compromise, vindicated it as a 
perpetual compact, which could not be disturbed. The 
language is so clear and strong that I will read it, 
although it has been already quoted by my able and 
most excellent friend from Ohio [Mr. Chase] : 

" It is true the Compromise is supported only by the letter of 
the law, repealable by the authority which enacted it ; but the 
circumstances of the case give this law a mokal force equal to 
that of a positive provision of the Constitution ; and we do not 
hazard anything by saying that the Constitution exists in its 
observance. Both parties have sacrificed much to conciliation. 
JVe wish to see the compact kept in good faith, and we trust that 
a kind ProYidence will open the way to relieve us of an evil 
which every good citizen deprecates as the supreme curse of 
the country." — JV>7c.s's Register. 

Sir, the distinguished leaders in this settlement were 
all from the South. As early as February, 1819, Louis 
McLane, of Delaware, had urged it upon Congress, 
in the form of " compact binding upon all subsequent 
Legislatures." It was in 1820 brought forward and 
upheld in the Senate by William Pinkney, of Mary- 
land, and passed in that body by the vote of every 
Southern Senator except two, against the vote of every 
Northern Senator except four. In the House, it was 
welcomed at once by Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and 
Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. The Committee 



FKEEDOM NATIONAL. 281 

of Conference, through which it finally prevailed, was 
filled, on the part of the Senate, with inflexible parti- 
sans of the South, such as might fitly represent the 
sentiments of its President, John Gaillard, a Senator 
from South Carolina ; on the part of the House, it was 
nominated by Henry Clay, the Speaker, and Represen- 
tative from Kentucky. This Committee, thus consti- 
tuted, drawing its double life from the South, was 
unanimous in favor of the Compromise. A privata 
letter from Mr. Pinkney, written at the time, and pre- 
served by his distinguished biographer, shows that the 
report made by the Committee came from him : 

" The bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union (with- 
out restriction as to Slavery) may be considered as past. That 
bill was sent back again this morning from the House, with the 
restriction as to Slavery. The Senate voted to amend it by 
striking out the restriction (twenty-seven to fifteen), and pro- 
posed, as another amendment, what I have ail along been the 
advocate of, a restriction upon the vacant territory to the north 
and west, as to Slavery. To-night the House of Representatives 
have agreed to both of these amendments, in opposition to their 
former votes, and this affair is settled. To-morrow we shall (of 
course) recede from our amendments as to Maine (our object 
being effected), and both States will be admitted. This happy 
result has been accomplished by the Conference, of which I was 
a member on the part of the Senate, and of which I proposed the 
report which has been made.'''' — Wheaton^s Life of Pinkney. 

Thus again the Compromise takes its life from the 
South. Proposed in the Committee by Mr. Pinkney, 
it was urged on the House of Representatives, with 
great earnestness, by Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, 
and Mr. Mercer, of Virginia ; and here again is the 
most persuasive voice of the South. When passed by 
Congress, it next came before the President, James 

2:1* 



282 THE LANDMARK OF FKEEDOM ; 

Monroe, of Virginia, for his approval, who did not 
sign it till after the unanimous opinion, in ^vriting, of 
his Cabinet, composed of John Quincy Adams, Wil- 
liam H. Crawford, Smith Thompson, John C. Calhoun, 
and William Wirt — a majority of whom were 
Southern men — that the prohibition of Slavery in 
the Territories was constitutional. Thus yet again 
the Compromise takes its life from the South. 

As the Compromise took its life from the South, so 
the South, in the judgment of its own statesmen at the 
time, and according to unquestionable facts, was the 
conquering party. It gained forthwith its darling 
desire, the first and essential stage in the admission of 
Missouri as a Slave State, successfully consummated 
at the next session ; and subsequently the admission 
of Arkansas, also as a Slave State. From the crushed 
and humbled North, it received more than the full 
consideration stipulated in its favor. On the side of 
the North the contract has been more than executed. 
And now the South refuses to perform the part which 
it originally proposed and assumed in this transaction. 
With the consideration in its pocket, it repudiates the 
bargain which it forced upon the country. This, sir, 
is a simple statement of the present question. 

A subtle German has declared, that he could find 
heresies in the Lord's Prayer — and I believe it is only 
in this spirit that any flaw can be found in the existing 
obligations of this compact. As late as 1848, in the 
discussions of this body, the Senator from Virginia, 
who usually sits behind me [Mr. Mason], but who is 
not now in his seat, while condemning it in many 
aspects, says : 

*♦ Yet as it was agreed to as a Compromise by the South for 



FKEEDOM NATIONAL. 283 

the sake of the Union, / would be the last to disturb it.^' — 
Cong. Globe, Appendix, 1st sess. ZOth Cong., vol. xix. p. 887. 

Even this determined Senator recognized it as aii 
obligation which he would not disturb. And, though 
disbelieving the original constitutionality of the ar- 
rangement, he was clearly right. I know, sir, that it 
is in form simply a legislative Act ; but as the Act of 
Settlement in England, declaring the rights and liber- 
ties of the subject, and settling the succession of the 
Crown, has become a permanent part of the British 
Constitution, irrepealablc by any common legislation, 
so this Act under all the circumstances attending its 
passage, also by long acquiescence and the complete 
performance of its conditions by one party, has become 
a part of our fundamental law, irrepealablc by any 
common legislation. As well might Congress at this 
moment undertake to overhaul the original purchase 
of Louisiana, as unconstitutional, and now, on this 
account, thrust away that magnificent heritage, with all 
its cities. States and territories, teeming with civiliza- 
tion. The Missouri Compact, in its unperformed obli- 
gations to Freedom, stands at this day as impregnable 
as the Louisiana purchase. 

I appeal to Senators about me, not to disturb it. I 
appeal to the Senators from Virginia, to keep inviolate 
the compact made in their behalf by James Barbour 
and Charles Fenton Mercer. I appeal to the Senators 
from South Carolina, to guard the work of John Gail- 
lard and William Lowndes. I appeal to the Senators 
from Maryland, to uphold the Compromise which 
elicited the constant support of Samuel Smith, and 
was first triumphantly pressed by the unsurpassed 
eloquence of Pinkncy. I appeal to the Senators from 



284 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Delaware, to maintain the landmark of Freedom in tlie 
Territory of Louisiana, early espoused by Louis Mc- 
Lane, I appeal to the Senators from Kentucky, not 
to repudiate the pledges of Henry Clay. I appeal to 
the Senators from Alabama, not to break tlie agree- 
ment sanctioned by the earliest votes in the Senate of 
their late most cherished fellow-citizen, William llufus 
King. Sir, I have heard of an honor that felt a stain 
like a wound. If there be any such in this chamber — 
as surely there is — it will hesitate to take upon its3lf 
the stain of this transaction. 

Sir, Congress may now set aside this obligation, 
repudiate this plighted faith, annul this compact ; and 
some of you, forgetful of the majesty of honest dealings 
in order to support Slavery, may consider it advanta- 
geous to use this power. To all such let me commend 
a familiar story : An eminent leader in antiquity, 
Themistocles, once announced to the Athenian Assem- 
bly, that he had a scheme to propose, highly beneficial 
to the State, but which could not be expounded to the 
many. Aristides, surnamed the Just, was appointed 
to receive the secret, and to report upon it. His brief 
and memorable judgment was, that, while nothing 
could be more advantageous to Athens, nothing could 
be more unjust; and the Athenian multitude, respond- 
ing at once, rejected the proposition. It appears that 
it was proposed to burn the combined Greek fleet, 
which then rested in the security of peace in a neigh- 
boring sea, and thus confirm the naval supremacy of 
Athens. A similar proposition is now brought before 
the American Senate. You arc asked to destroy a 
safeguard of Freedom, consecrated by solemn compact, 
under which the country is now reposing in the secu- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 285 

lity of peace, and thus confirm the supremacy of 
Slavery. To this institution and its partisans the 
proposition may seem to be advantageous ; but nothing 
can be more unjust. Let the judgment of the Athenian 
multitude be yours. 

This is what I have to say upon this head. I now 
pass to the second branch of the argument. 

II. Mr. President, it is not only as an infraction 
of solemn compact, embodied in ancient law, that I 
arraign this bill. I arraign it also as a flagrant and 
extravagant departure from the original policy of our 
fathers, consecrated by their lives, opinions and acts. 

And here, sir, bear with me in a brief recital of 
unquestionable facts. At the period of the Declaration 
of Independence, there was upwards of half a million 
colored persons in slavery throughout the United Colo- 
nies. These unhappy people were originally stolen 
from Africa, or were the children of those who had 
been stolen, and, though distributed throughout the 
whole country, were to be found in largest number in 
the Southern States. But the spirit of Freedom then 
prevailed in the land. The fathers of the Republic, 
leaders in the war of Independence, were struck with 
the inconsistency of an appeal for their own liberties, 
while holding in bondage their fellow-men, only " guilty 
of a skin not colored like their own." The same con- 
viction animated the hearts of the people, whether at 
the North or South. In a town meeting, at Danbury, 
Connecticut, held on the 12th December, 1778, the 
following declaration was made : 

" It is with singular pleasure we note the second article of the 
Association, in which it is agreed to import no more negro 



286 THE LANDMARK OF FKEEDOM ; 

slaves, as we cannot but think it a palpable absurdity so loudly 
to complain of attempts to enslave us while we are actually en- 
slaving others. l?n. Archives, Uh Series, vol. i. p. 1038, 

The Soath responded in similar strains. At a 
meeting in Darien, Georgia, in 1775, the following 
important resolution was put forth : 

" To show the world that we are not influenced by any con- 
tracted or interested motives, but by a general philanthropy for 
all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, we 
hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the un- 
natural practice of Slavery in (however the uncultivated state 
of the country or other specious arguments may plead for it) a 
practice founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous 
to our liberties as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow- 
creatures below men and corrupting the virtue and morals of 
the rest, and laying the basis of that liberty we contend for, and 
which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity, 
upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve at all 
times to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our 
slaves in this Colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing 

for the masters and themselves." iin. Archives, Uh Series, 

vol. i. p. 1135. 

The soul of Virginia, during this period, found 
fervid utterance through Jefferson, who, by precocious 
and immortal words, has enrolled himself among the 
earliest Abolitionists of the country. In bis address 
to the Virginia Convention of 1774, he openly avowed, 
while vindicating the rights of British America, that 
" the abolition of domestic Slavery is the greatest ob- 
ject of desire in these Colonies, where it was unhappily 
introduced in their infant state.'' And then again, in 
tlie Declaration of Independence, he embodied senti- 
ments, which, when practically applied, will give Free- 
dom to every slave throughout the land. " We hold 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 287 

these truths to be self-evident," says our country, 
speaking by the voice of Jefferson, " that all men are 
created equal — that they are endowed with certain 
inahenable rights — that among these are life, lilertij, 
and the pursuit of happiness." And again, in the 
Congress of the Confederation, he brought forward, as 
early as 1784, a resolution to exclude Slavery from all 
the territory " ceded or to be ceded" by the States of 
the Federal Government, including the whole territory 
now covered by Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. 
Lost at first by a single vote only, this measure was 
renewed in a more restricted form, at a subsequent 
day, by a son of Massachusetts, and in 1787 was finally 
confirmed in the Ordinance of the Northwestern Terri- 
tory, by a unanimous vote of the States. 

Thus early and distinctly do we discern the Anti- 
Slavery character of the founders of our Republic, and 
their determination to place the National Government, 
within the sphere of its jurisdiction, openly, actively 
and perpetually, on the side of Freedom. 

The National Constitution was adopted in 1788. 
And here we discern the same spirit. The emphatic 
words of the Declaration of Independence, which our 
country took upon its lips as baptismal vows, when it 
claimed its place among the nations of the earth, 
were not forgotten. The preamble to the Constitution 
renews them, when it declares its object to be, among 
other things, "to establish justice, to promote the gen- 
eral welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and posterity." Thus, according to undeniable 
words, the Constitution was ordained, not to establish, 
secure, or sanction Slavery — not to promote the special 
interest of slaveholders — not to make Slavery national 



288 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

in any way, form, or manner — not to foster this great 
wrong, but to " establish, justice," " promote the gen- 
eral welfare," and "secure the blessings of Liberty." 
The discreditable words Slave and Slavery were not 
allowed to find a place in this instrument, while a 
clause was subsequently added by way of amendment, 
and, therefore, according to the rules of interpretation, 
particularly revealing the sentiments of the founders, 
which is calculated, like the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, if practically applied, to carry Freedom every- 
where within the sphere of its influence. It was 
specifically declared, that " no person shall be deprived 
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
law ; " that is, without due presentment, indictment, 
or other judicial proceeding. Here is an express 
guard of personal Liberty, and an express interdict 
upon slavery anywhere within the national jurisdic- 
tion. 

It is evident, from the debates on the National 
Constitution, that Slavery, like the Slave trade, was 
regarded as temporary ; and it seems to have been 
supposed by many that they would both disappear 
together. Nor do any words employed in our day 
denounce it with an indignation more burning than 
those which glowed on the lips of the Fathers. Early 
in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, 
broke forth in the language of an Abolitionist : " He 
never would concur in upholding domestic Slavery. 
It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of 
Heaven." In another mood, and with mild, juridical 
phrase, Mr. Madison " thought it wrong to admit in 
the Constitution the idea of property in man." And 
Washington, in letters written near this period — 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 289 

which completely describe the aims of an. Abolitionist 
— avowed " that it was among his first wishes to see 
some plan adopted by which Slavery may be abolished 
by law," and that to this end " his suffrage should not 
be wanting." 

In this spirit was the National Constitution adopted. 
In this spirit the National Government was first organ- 
ized under Washington. And here there is a fact of 
peculiar significance, to which I have already, on a 
former occasion, called attention, but w^hich is well 
worthy of perpetual memory. At the time that this 
great chief took his first oath to support the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, the national ensign nowhere 
within the national territory covered a single slave. 
On the sea, an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, 
was still, to the national scandal, tolerated under the 
national flag. In the States, as a sectional institution, 
beneath the shelter of local laws, Slavery unhappily 
found a home. But in the only Territories at this time 
belonging to the nation, the broad region of the North- 
west, it had already, by the Ordinance of Freedom, 
been made impossible, even before the adoption of the 
Constitution. The District of Columbia, with its Fatal 
Dowry, had not yet been acquired. 

Entering upon his high duties, Washington, himself 
an Abolitionist, was surrounded by men, who, by their 
lives and declared opinions, were pledged to warfare 
with Slavery. There was John Adams, the Vice Pres- 
ident — great vindicator and final negotiator of our 
National Independence — whose soul, flaming with 
Freedom, broke forth in the early declaration, that 
" consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious breach of 
trust," and whose immitigable hostility to this wrong 
25 



290 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

has been made immortal in his descendants. By his 
side, also, was a companion in arms and attached 
friend, the yet youthful and " incomparable " Hamil- 
ton — fit companion in early fame and genius with 
that darling of English history. Sir Philip Sidney, to 
whom the latter epithet has been reserved — who, as a 
member of the Abolition Society of New York, had 
only recently united in a solemn petition for those 
who, " though free hy the laws of God, are held in 
Slavery hy the laws of the State. '^ There, too, was a 
noble spirit, of spotless virtue, and commanding influ- 
ence, the ornament of human nature, who, like the 
sun, ever held an unerring course, John Jay. Filling 
the important post of Minister of Foreign Affairs 
under the Confederation, he found time to organize the 
Abolition Society of New York, and to act as its Presi- 
dent, until by the nomination of Washington he be- 
came Chief Justice of the United States. In his sight, 
Slavery was an " iniquity " — "a sin of crimson dye," 
against which ministers of the gospel should testify, 
and which the Government should seek in every way 
to abolish. " Were I in the Legislature," he wrote, 
*' I would present a bill for this purpose with great 
care, and I would never cease moving it till it became 
a law or I ceased to be a member. Till America 
comes into this measure, her prayers to Heaven will 
be impious." By such men was Washington sur- 
rounded, while from his own Virginia came the voice 
of Patrick Henry, amidst confessions that he was a 
master of slaves, crying, " I will not, I cannot justify 
it. However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay 
my devoir to virtue as to own the excellence and 
rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want of con- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 291 

formity to them." Such words as these, fitly coming 

from our leaders, belong to the true glories of the 

country : 

" While we such precedents can boast at home, 
Keep thy Fabricias and thy Cato, Rome ! " 

The earliest Congress under the Constitution adopted 
the Ordinance of Freedom for the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory, and thus ratified the prohibition of Slavery in 
all the existing Territories of the Union. In the list 
of those who sanctioned this act were men fresh from 
the labors of the Convention, and therefore familiar 
with its policy. But there is another voice which bears 
testimony in the same direction. Among the petitions 
presented to the first Congress, was one from the Abo- 
lition Society of Pennsylvania, signed by Benjamin 
Franklin, as President. This venerable votary of Free- 
dom, who throughout a long life had splendidly served 
his country at home and abroad — who, as statesman 
and philosopher, had won the admiration of man- 
kind — who had ravished the lightning from the skies 
and the sceptre from the tyrant — whose name, signed 
to the Declaration of Independence, gave added im- 
portance even to that great instrument, and then again 
signed to the Constitution of the United States, filled 
it Avith the charm of wisdom — in whom, more than 
in any other man, the true spirit of American Institu- 
tions, at once practical and humane, Mas embodied — 
who knew intimately the purposes and aspirations of 
the founders — this veteran statesman, then eighty- 
four years of age, appeared at the bar of that Congress, 
whose powers he had helped to define and establish, 
and, by the last political act of his long life, solemnly 
entreated " that it would b2 pleased to countenance 



292 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who 
alone, in this land of Freedom, are degraded into per- 
petual bondage," and " that it would step to the very 
verge of the power vested in it for discouraging 
every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow- 
men." Only a short time after uttering this prayer, 
the patriot sage descended to the tomb ; but he seems 
still to call upon Congress, in memorable words, to 
step to the very verge of the powers vested in it to dis- 
courage Slavery ; and this prayer, now sounding from 
the tomb of Franklin, proclaims the true national policy 
of the Fathers. Not encouragement, but discouragement 
of slavery, not its nationalization, but its denational- 
ization, was their rule. 

The memorial of Franklin, with other memorials of 
a similar character, was referred to a Committee, and 
much debated in the House, which finally sanctioned 
the following resolution, and directed the same to be 
entered upon its journals, viz : 

" That Congress have no authority to interfere in the eman- 
cipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the 
States ; it remaining with the several States to provide any 
regulations therein which humanity may require.''^ 

This resolution, declaring the principle of non-inter- 
vention by Congress with Slavery in the States, was 
adopted by the same Congress which had solemnly 
affirmed the prohibition of Slavery in all the existing 
territory of the Union ; and not only by the same 
Congress, but at the same session, so that one may be 
regarded as the complement of the other. And it is 
on these double acts, at the first organization of the 
Government, and the recorded sentiments of the 



FBEEDOM NATIOXAL. 293 

founders, that I take my stand, and challenge all 
question. 

At this time, there was strictly no dividing line in the 
country between Anti- Slavery and Pro- Slavery. The 
Anti- Slavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad 
and general, pervading alike all jiarts of the Union, 
and uprising from the common heart of the entire 
people. The Pro-Slavery interest was strictly personal 
and pecuniary, and had its source simply in the self- 
interest of individual slaveholders. It contemplated 
Slavery only as a domestic institution — not as a 
political element — and merely stipulated for its se- 
curity where it actually existed within the States. 

Sir, the original policy of the country, begun under 
the Confederation, and recognized at the initiation of 
the new Government, is clear and unmistakable. Com- 
pendiously expressed, it was non-intervention by Con- 
gress icitli Slavery in the States, and its prohibition in 
all the national domain. In this way, the discordant 
feelings on this subject were reconciled. Slave-masters 
were left at home in their respective States, under the 
protection of local laws, to hug Slavery without any 
interference from Congress, while all opposed to it 
were exempted from any responsibility therefor in the 
national domain. This, sir, is the common ground on 
which our political fabric was reared ; and I do not 
hesitate to say that it is the only ground on which it 
can stand in permanent peace. 

It is beyond question, sir, that our Constitution was 
framed by the lovers of Human Rights; that it was 
animated by their divine spirit ; that the institution 
of Slavery was regarded by them with aversion, so 
that, though covertly alluded to, it Mas not named 



294 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

in the instrument ; that, according to the debates in 
the Convention, they refused to give it any " sanction," 
and looked forward to the certain day when it would 
be obliterated from the land. But the original policy 
of the Government did not long prevail. The gener- 
ous sentiments which filled the early patriots, giving 
to them his4;oric grandeur, gradually lost their power. 
The blessings of Freedom being already secured to 
themselves, the freemen of the land grew indifferent to 
the freedom of others. They ceased to think of the 
slaves. The slave-masters availed themselves of this 
indifference, and, though few in numbers, compared 
with the non-slaveholders, even in the slave States 
(according to the late census they are fewer than three 
hundred and fifty thousand), they have, under the in- 
fluence of an imagined self-interest, by the skilful 
tactics of party, and especially by an unhesitating, per- 
severing union among themselves — swaying, by turns, 
both the great political parties — succeeded, through 
a long succession of years, in obtaining the control of 
the National Government, bending it to their purposes, 
compelling it to do their will, and imposing upon it a 
policy friendly to Slavery — offensive to Freedom only 
— and directly opposed to the sentiments of its found- 
ers. Our Republic has swollen in population and power ; 
but it has shrunk in character. It is not now what it 
was in the beginning, a Republic merely permitting, 
while it regretted Slavery ; tolerating it only where it 
could not be removed, and interdicting it where it did 
not exist — but a mighty Propagandist, openly favor- 
ing and vindicating it ; visiting, also, with displeasure 
all who oppose it. 

Sir, our country early reached heights which it could 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 295 

not keep. Its fall was gentle but complete. At the 
session of Congress immediately following the ratifica- 
tion of the prohibition of SlaA'ery in the national 
domain, a transfer of the territory now constituting 
Tennessee was accepted from North Carolina (2d April, 
1790), loaded with the express condition " that no 
regulation made, or to be made, should tend to eman- 
cipate slaves ; " a formal provision, which, while ad- 
mitting the power of Congress over Slavery in the 
Territories, waived the prevailing policy of executing it. 
This was followed, in 1798, by the transfer from Georgia 
of the region between her present western limit and 
the Mississippi, under a similar condition. In both 
these cases, an apology may be found in the very terms 
of the transfers, and in the fact that the region consti- 
tuted a part of two States where Slavery actually 
existed ; though it will be confessed that even here 
there was a descent from that summit of Freedom on 
which the Nation had so proudly rested : 

" From morn 
To noon he fell ; from noon to dewy eve — 
A summer's day, and with the setting sun 
Drop'd from the zenith, like a falling star." 

But, without tracing this downward course through 
its successive stages, let mc refer to facts, which too 
palpably reveal the abyss that has been reached. 
Early in our history, no man was disqualified for 
public ofiice by reasons of his opinions on this subject; 
and this condition continued for a long period. As 
late as 1821, John W. Taylor, Representative from 
New York, who had pressed with so much energy, not 
merely the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, 
but its restriction in the State of Missouri, was elected 



296 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

to the chair of Henry Clay, as Speaker of the other 
House. It is needless to add, that no determined 
supporter of the prohibition of Slavery in the Terri- 
tories at this day could expect that eminent trust. 
An arrogant and unrelenting ostracism is now applied, 
not only to all who express themselves against Slavery, 
but to every man who will not be its menial. A novel 
test for office has been introduced, which would have 
excluded all the Fathers of the Republic — even Wash- 
ington, Jefferson and Franklin. Yes, sir ; startling 
it may be, but indisputable. Could these illustrious 
men descend from their realms above, and revisit the 
land which they once nobly dedicated to Freedom, they 
could not, with their well-known and recorded opinions 
against Slavery, receive a nomination for the Presi- 
dency from either of the old political parties. Nor 
could John Jay, our first Chief Justice, and great ex- 
emplar of Judicial virtue — who hated Slavery as he 
loved Justice — be admitted to resume those duties 
with which his name on earth is indissolubly associated ; 
nor could either of the patriots, whose names are now 
our greatest pride, be confirmed by the Senate for any 
jDolitical function whatever. To such lowest deep has 
our Government descended. 

These things prepare us to comprehend the true 
character of the change with regard to the Territories. 
In 1787, all the existing national domain was prompt- 
ly and unanimously dedicated to Freedom, without 
opposition or criticism. The interdict of Slavery then 
covered every inch of soil belonging to the National 
Government. Louisiana, an immense region beyond 
the bounds of the original States, was subsequently 
acquired, and in 1820, after a vehement struggle, which 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 297 

shook the whole land, discomfited Freedom was com- 
pelled, by a dividing line, to a partition with Slavery. 
This arrangement, which, in its very terms, was exclu- 
sively applicable to a particular territory purchased 
from France, has been accepted as final down to the 
present session of Congress ; but now sir, here in 
1854, Freedom is suddenly summoned to surrender 
even her hard-won moiety. Here are the three stages : 
at the first, all is consecrated to Freedom ; at the 
second, only half ; while at the third, all is grasped 
by Slavery. Thus is the original policy of the Gov- 
ernment absolutely reversed. Slavery, which, at the 
beginning, was a sectional institution, with no foothold 
anywhere on the National Territory, is now exalted as 
a Xational Institution, and all our broad domain is 
threatened by its bhghting shadow. 

Thus much for what I have to say, at this time, of 
the original policy, consecrated by the lives, opinions 
and acts of our Fathers. Summoning to my side the 
majestic forms of those civil heroes, whose firmness in 
council was only equalled by the firmness of "Wash- 
ington in war, I might leave the cause in their care. 
But certain reasons are adduced for the proposed de- 
parture from their great example, and, though these 
seem of little validity, yet I would not pass them in 
silence. 

The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is 
assailed, as beyond the power of Congress, and an 
infringement of the local sovereignty. On this account 
it is, at this late day, pronounced unconstitutional. 
Now, without considering minutely the sources from 



298 THE LANDMARK OF FEEEDOM ; 

wliich the power of Congress over the national domain 
is derived — whether from the express grant in the 
Constitution to make rules and regulations for the 
government of the Territory, or from the power, neces- 
sarily implied, to govern Territory acquired by con- 
quest or purchase — it seems to me impossible to deny 
its existence, without invalidating a large portion of 
the legislation of the country, from the adoption of 
the Constitution down to the present day. This 
power was asserted before the Constitution. It was 
not denied or prohibited by the Constitution itself. 
It has been exercised from the first existence of the 
Government, and has been recognized by the three de- 
partments — the Executive, the Legislative and the 
Judicial. Precedents of every kind are tliick in its 
support. Indeed, the very Bill now before us, assumes 
a control of the Territory clearly inconsistent with 
those principles of sovereignty, which are said to be 
violated by a Congressional prohibition of Slavery. 

Here are provisions, determining the main features 
in the Government — the distribution of powers in the 
Executive, the Legislative and Judicial departments, 
and the manner in which they shall be respectively 
constituted ; securing to the President, with the con- 
sent of the Senate, the appointment of the Governor, 
the Secretary and the Judges, and to the people only 
the election of the Legislature ; and even ordaining 
the qualifications of voters, the salaries of the public 
officers, and the daily compensation of the members of 
the Legislature. Surely, if Congress may establish 
these provisions, without any interference with the 
rights of territorial sovereignty, it is absurd to say that 
it may not also prohibit Slavery. 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. • 299 

But in the very Bill there is an express prohibition 
on the Territory, borrowed from the Ordinance of 
1787, and repeated in every Act organizing a Territory, 
or even a new State, down to the present time, wherein 
it is expressly declared, that " no tax shall be imposed 
upon the property of the United States." Now, here 
is a clear and unquestionable restraint upon the sover- 
eignty of Territories and States. The public lands of 
the United States, situated within an organized Terri- 
tory or State, cannot be regarded as the instruments 
and means necessary and proper to execute the sover- 
eign powers of the nation, like fortifications, arsenals 
and navy yards. They are strictly in the nature of 
'private projoerty of the nation, and as such, unless 
exempted by the foregoing prohibition, would clearly 
be within the field of local taxation, liable, like the 
lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens 
and incidents. Mr. Justice Woodbury has declared, 
in a well-considered judgment, that " where the United 
States own land situated within the limits of particular 
States, and over which they have no cession of juris- 
diction, for objects either special or general, little 
doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation 
to it are usually the same as apply to other landholders 
within the States." — {United States y. Ames, 1 Wood- 
bury & Minot, p. 7G). I assume, then, that without 
this prohibition these lands would be liable to taxation. 
Does any one question this ? Xobody. The conclu- 
sion then follows, that by this prohibition you propose 
to deprive the present Territory, as you have deprived 
other Territories — ay, and States — of an essential 
portion of its sovereignty. 

And these, sir, are not vain words. The Supreme 



300 • THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Court of the United States have given great promi- 
nence to the sovereign right of taxation in the States. 
In the case of Providence Bank v. Pittman, 4 Peters, 
514, they declare — 

*' That the taxing power is of vital importance ; that it is es- 
sential to the existence of Government ; that the relinquishment 
of such power is never to be assumed." 

And again, in the case of Dohhins v. Commissioners 
of Erie County, 16 Peters, 447, they say — 

" Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of Gov- 
ernment — a7i incident of sovereignty. The right of legislation 
is co-extensive with the incident to attach it upon all persons 
and property within the jurisdiction of the State." 

Now, I call upon Senators to remark, that this sacred 
right, said to be essential to the very existence of 
Government, is abridged in the Bill before us. 

For myself, I do not doubt the power of Congress 
to fasten this restriction upon the Territory, and after- 
wards upon the State, as has been always done ; but 
I am at a loss to see on what grounds this restric- 
tion can be placed, which will not also support the 
Prohibition of Slavery. The former is an unquestion- 
able infringement of sovereignty, as declared by our 
Supreme Court, far more than can be asserted of the 
latter. 

I am unwilling to admit, sir, that the Prohibition 
of Slavery in the Territories is in any just sense an 
infringement of the local sovereignty. Slavery is an 
infraction of the immutable law of nature, and as such, 
cannot be considered a natural incident to any sover- 
eignty, especially in a country which has solemnly 
declared, in its Declaration of Independence, the in- 



FREEDOM NATIOXAL. 301 

alienable right of all men to life, liberty and the pur- 
suit of happiness. In an age of civilization and in a 
land of rights, Slavery may still be tolerated in fact ; 
but its prohibition, within a municipal jurisdiction, by 
the Government thereof — as by one of the States of 
the Union — cannot be considered an infraction of 
natural rights ; nor can its prohibition by Congress in 
the Territories be regarded as an infringement of the 
local sovereignty, founded, as it must be, on natural 
rights. 

But another argument is pressed, most fallacious in 
its character. It is asserted that, inasmuch as the 
Territories were acquired by the conmion treasure, they 
are the common property of the whole Union ; and, 
therefore, no citizen can be prevented from moving 
into them with his slaves, without an infringement of 
the equal rights and privileges which belong to him as 
a citizen of the United States. But, it is admitted that 
the people of this very Territory, when organized as a 
State, may exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an 
asserted right founded on the common property in the 
Territory. Now, if this can be done by the few thou- 
sand settlers who constitute the State Government, 
the whole argument founded on the acquisition of the 
Territories, by a common treasure, seems futile and 
evanescent. 

But this argument proceeds on an assumption which 
cannot stand. It assumes that Slavery is a National 
Institution, and that property in slaves is recognized by 
the Constitution of the United States. Nothing can 
be more false. By the judgment of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and also by the principles 
of the common law. Slavery is a local municipal insti- 
26 



302 TUB LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

tution, which derives its support exclusively from local 
municipal laws, and beyond the sphere of these laws it 
ceases to exist, except so far as it may be preserved by 
the clause for the rendition of fugitives from service. 
Madison thought it wrong to admit into the Constitu- 
tion the idea that there can be property in man ; and I 
rejoice to believe that no such idea can be found there. 
The Constitution regards slaves always as " persons," 
with the rights of " persons," never as property. 
When it is said, therefore, that every citizen may enter 
the national domain with his property, it does not fol- 
low, by any rule of logic or of law, that he may carry his 
slaves. On the contrary, he can only carry that prop- 
erty which is admitted to be such by the universal law 
of nature, written by God's own finger on the heart of 
man. 

Again : The relation of master and slave is some- 
times classed "svith the domestic relations. Now, while 
it is unquestionably among the powers of any State, 
within its own jurisdiction, to change the existing 
relation of husband and wife, and to establish polyg- 
amy, I presume no person would contend that a polyg- 
amous husband, resident in one of the States, would 
be entitled to enter the National Territory with his 
harem — his property, if you please — and there claim 
immunity. Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that 
local jurisdiction, which sanctions polygamy, the pecu- 
liar domestic relation would cease ; and it is precisely 
the same with Slavery. 

Sir, I dismiss these considerations. The Prohibition 
of Slavery in the Territory of Kansas and Nebraska 
stands on foundations of adamant, upheld by the early 
policy of the Fathers, by constant precedent, and time- 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 303 

honored compact. It is now in your power to overturn 
it ; you may remove the sacred landmark, and open the 
whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is committed 
this high prerogative. Our fathers, on the eve of the 
Revolution, set forth in burning words, among their 
grievances, that George III. " in order to keep open a 
market where men should be bought and sold, had 
prostituted his negative for suppressing every legis- 
lative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable 
commerce." Sir, like the English monarch, you may 
now prostitute your power to this same purpose. But 
you cannot escape the judgment of the world, nor the 
doom of history. 

It will be in vain, that, while doing this thing, you 
plead, in apology, the principle of self- government, 
which you profess to recognize in the Territories. Sir, 
this very principle, when truly administered, secures 
equal rights to all, without distinction of color or race, 
and makes Slavery impossible. By no rule of justice, 
and by no subtlety of political metaphysics, can the 
right to hold a fellow-man in bondage be regarded as 
essential to self-government. The inconsistency is too 
flagrant. It is apparent on the bare statement. It is 
like saying two and two make three. In the name of 
Liberty you open the door to Slavery. With profes- 
sions of Equal Rights on the lips, you trample on the 
rights of Human Nature. With a kiss upon the brow 
of that fair Territory, you betray it to wretchedness 
and shame. Well did the patriot soul exclaim, in 
bitter words, wrung out by bitter experience : " Oh 
Liberty ! what crimes are done in thy name ! " 

In vain, sir, you will plead, that this measure pro-, 
cecds from the North, as has been suggested by the 



304 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Dixon]. Even if this 
were true, it would be no apology. But, precipitated 
as this Bill has been upon the Senate, at a moment of 
general calm, and in the absence of any controlling 
exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of 
the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot justly 
be called the offspring of any popular sentiment. In 
this respect it differs widely from the Missouri Prohibi- 
tion, which, after solemn debate, extending through 
two sessions of Congress, and ample discussion before 
the people, was adopted. Certainly there is, as yet, 
no evidence that this attempt, though espoused by 
Northern politicians, proceeds from that Northern sen- 
timent which throbs and glows, strong and fresh, in the 
schools, the churches and homes of the people. Populi 
omnes ad aqiiilonem posit i Liber tatem quandam 
spirant. And could the abomination which you seek 
to perpetrate be now submitted to the awakened mil- 
lions whose souls have been truly ripened under North- 
ern skies, it would be flouted at once with indignant 
and undying scorn. 

But the race of men, "white slaves of the North," 
described and despised by a Southern statesman, is not 
yet extinct there, sir. It is one of the melancholy 
tokens of the power of Slavery, under our political 
system, and especially through the operations of the 
National Government, that it loosens and destroys the 
character of Northern men, exerting its subtle influence 
even at a distance — like the black magnetic moun- 
tain in the Arabian story, under whose irresistible 
attraction the iron bolts, which hold together the 
strong timbers of a stately ship, securely floating on 
the distant wave, were drawn out, till the whole fell 



TEEEDOM NATIONAL. 305 

apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Alas ! too 
often those principles, which give consistency, mdi- 
viduality and form, to the Northern character, which 
render it staunch, strong and seaworthy, which bind it 
together as with iron, are sucked out, one by one, like 
the bolts of the ill-fated vessel, and from the miserable, 
loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly — 
a Northern man with Southern principles. Sir — Xo 
such man can speak for the North. 

[Here there was an interruption of prolonged ap- 
plause in the galleries.] 

The Pkesident (Mr. Stuart in the chair). The 
Chair will be obliged to du-ect the galleries to be 
cleared, if order is not preserved. No applause will be 
allowed. 

Several Voices. Let them be cleared now. 

Mr. SuMXEK. Mr. President, I advance now to 
considerations of a more general character, to which I 
ask your best attention. Sir, this Bill is proposed as a 
measure of peace. In this way you vainly think to 
withdraw the subject of Slavery from National Politics. 
This is a mistake. Peace depends on mutual confi- 
dence. It can never rest secure on broken faith and 
injustice. And, sir permit me to say, frankly, sin- 
cerely and earnestly, that the subject of Slavery can 
never be withdrawn from the National Politics, until 
we return once more to the original policy of our 
fathers, at the first organization of the Government, 
under Washington, when the National ensign nowhere 
on the National Territory covered a single slave. 

Slavery, which our fathers branded as an " evil," a 
"curse," an " enormity," a " nefarious institution," is 
26* 



306 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

condemned at tlie North by the strongest convictions 
of the reason and the best sentiments of the heart. It 
is the only subject within the field of National Politics 
which excites any real interest. The old matters which 
have divided the minds of men have lost, their import- 
ance. One by one they have disappeared, leaving the 
ground to be occupied by a question grander far. The 
Bank, Sub-Treasury, the Distribution of the Public 
Lands, are each and all obselete issues. Even the 
Tariff is not a question on which opposite political 
parties are united in taking opposite sides. And now, 
instead of these superseded questions, which were 
filled for the most part with the odor of the dollar, the 
country is directly summoned to consider face to face 
a cause, which is connected with all that is divine in 
religion, with all that is pure and noble in morals, with 
all that is truly practical and constitutional in politics. 
Unlike the other questions, it is not temporary or local 
in its character. It belongs to all times and to all 
countries. Though long kept in check, it now, by 
your introduction, confronts the people, demanding to 
be heard. To every man in the land it says, with 
clear, penetrating voice, " Are you for Freedom, or are 
you for Slavery ? " And every man in the land must 
answer this question when he votes. 

Pass this Bill, and it will be in vain that you say, 
the Slavery Question is settled. Sir, nothmg can he 
settled which is not right. Nothing can be settled 
which is adverse to Freedom. God, nature and all 
the holy sentiments of the heart, repudiate any such 
false seeming settlement. 

Now, sir, mark the clear line of our duty. And here 
let me speak for those with whom, in minoritv and 



FKEEDOM NATIONAL. 307 

defeat, I am proud to be associated, — the Independent 
Democrats, — who espouse that Democracy which is 
transfigiu'ed in the Declaration of Independence and. 
the injunctions of Christianity. The testimony which 
we bear against Slavery, as against all other wrong, is 
in different ways, according to our position. The 
Slavery, which exists under other Governments — as 
in Russia or Turkey — or in other States of the Union, 
as in Virginia and Carolina, we can oppose only 
through the influence of literature, morals and religion, 
without in any way invoking the Political Power. 
Nor is it proposed to act otherwise. But Slavery, 
where we are parties to it — where we are responsible 
for it — everywhere within our jurisdiction — must be 
opposed, not only by all the influence of literature, 
morals and religion, but directly by every instrument 
of Political Power. In the States it is sustained by 
local laws, and although we may be compelled to share 
the shame, which its presence inflicts upon the fair 
fame of the country, yet it receives no direct sanction 
at our hands. We are not responsible for it. The 
wrong is not at our own particular doors. It is not 
witliin our jurisdiction. But Slavery everywhere 
under the Constitution of the United States — every- 
where within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National 
Government — everywhere under the National Flag, 
is at our own particular doors, within the sphere of 
our own personal responsibility, and exists there in 
defiance of the original policy of our Fathers, and of 
the true principles of the Constitution. 

It is a mistake to say, as is often charged, that we 
seek to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery in 
the States, or in any way to direct the legislation of 



308 IHE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

Congress upon subjects not within its jurisdiction. 
Our political aims, as well as our political duties, are 
co-extensive with our political responsibilities. And 
since we at the North are responsible for Slavery 
wherever it exists under the jurisdiction of Congress, 
it is unpardonable in us not to exert every power we 
possess to enlist Congress against it. 

Such is our cause. To men of all parties and 
opinions, who wish well to the Republic, and would 
preserve its good name, it appeals. Alike to the Con- 
servative and the Reformer, it appeals ; for it stands 
on the truest Conservatism and the truest Reform. In 
seeking the reform of existing evils, we seek also the 
conservation of the principles of our fathers. The 
cause is not sectional. Oh, no ! sir, it is not sectional ; 
for it simply aims to establish under the National Gov- 
ernment those great principles of Justice and Humanity, 
which are broad and universal as man. As well might 
it be said that Jefferson, Franklin and Washington, 
were sectional. It is not aggressive ; for it does not 
seek in any way to interfere, through Congress, with 
Slavery in the States. It is not contrary to the Con- 
stitution ; for it recognizes this paramount law, and in 
the administration of the Government invokes the 
spirit of its founders. Sir, it is not hostile to the 
quiet of the country ; for it proposes the only course 
by which agitation can be allayed, and quiet be per- 
manently established. 

It is not uncommon to hear persons declare that 
they are against Slavery, and are willing to unite in 
any practical efforts to make this opposition felt. 
At the same time, they pharisaically visit with con- 
demnation, with reproach or contempt, the earnest 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 309 

souls wIlo for years have striven in this struggle. To 
such I would say — could I reach them now with my 
voice — if you are sincere in what you declare ; if 
your words are not merely lip-service ; if in your hearts 
you are entirely willing to join in any practical efforts 
against Slavery, then by your lives, by your conversa- 
tion, by your influence, by your votes — disregarding 
"• the ancient forms of party strife " -^ seek to carry 
the principles of Freedom into the National Govern- 
ment, wherever its jurisdiction is acknowledged and 
its power can be felt. Thus, without any interference 
with the States, which are beyond this jurisdiction, 
may you help to erase the blot of Slavery from our 
National brow. 

Do this, and you will most truly promote the har- 
mony which you so much desire. You will establish 
tranquillity throughout the country. Then at last, sir, 
the Slavery Question will be settled. Banished from 
its usurped foothold under the National Government, 
Slavery will no longer enter, with distracting force, 
into the National Politics — making and unmaking 
laws, making and unmaking Presidents. Confined to 
the States, where it was left by the Constitution, it 
will take its place as a local institution — if, alas ! 
continue it must ! — for which we are in no sense 
responsible, and against which we cannot exert any 
political power. We shall be relieved from our pres- 
ent painful and irritating connection with it. The 
existing antagonism between the North and the South 
will be softened ; crimination and recrimination will 
cease ; the wishes of the Fathers will be fulfilled, aud 
this Great Evil will be left to the kindly influences of 



310 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM ; 

morals and religion, and the prevailing laws of social 
economy. 

I am not blind to the adverse signs. But this I see 
clearly. Amidst all seeming discouragements, the 
great omens are with us. Art, literature, poetry, 
religion — everything which elevates man — all are 
on our side. The plough, the steam-engine, the rail- 
road, the telegraph, the book, every human improve- 
ment, every generous word anywhere, every true 
pulsation of every heart which is not a mere muscle, 
and nothing else, gives new encouragement to the 
warfare with Slavery. The discussion will proceed. 
The devices of party can no longer stave it off. The 
subterfuges of the politician cannot escape it. The 
tricks of the office-seeker cannot dodge it. Wherever 
an election occurs, there this question will arise. 
Wherever men come together to speak of public affairs, 
there again will it be. No political Joshua now, with 
miraculous power, can stop the sun in his course 
through the heavens. It is even now rejoicing, like 
a strong man, to run its race, and will yet send its 
beams into the most distant plantations — ay, sir, and 
melt the chains of every slave. 

But this movement - — or agitation, as it is reproach- 
fully called — is boldly pronounced injurious to the 
very object desired. Now, without entering into 
details which neither time nor the occasion justifies, 
let me say that this objection belongs to those com- 
monplaces, which have been arrayed against every 
beneficent movement in the world's history — against 
even knowledge itself — against the abolition of the 
slave-trade. Perhaps it was not unnatural for the 
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger] to press it, 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 311 

even aa vehemently as lie did ; but it sounded less 
natural when it came, though in more moderate 
phrase, from my distinguished friend and colleague 
from JMassachusctts [Mr. Everett]. The past furnishes 
a controlling example by which its true character may 
be determined. Do not forget, sir, that the efforts of 
William Wilberforce encountered this precise objec- 
tion, and that the condition of the kidnapped slave 
was then vindicated, in language not unlike that of 
the Senator from North Carolina, by no less a person 
than the Duke of Clarence, of the royal family of 
Great Britain. In what was called his maiden speech, 
on 3d May, 1792, and preserved in the Parliamentary 
Debates, he said : " The negroes were not treated in 
the manner which had so much agitated the public 
mind. He had been an attentive observer of their state, 
and had no doubt that he could bring forward proofs 
to convince their lordships that their state was far 
from being miserable ; on the contrary, that when the 
various ranks of society were considered, they were 
comparatively in a state of humble happiness." And 
only the next year this same royal prince, in debate in 
the House of Lords, asserted that the promoters of the 
abolition of the slave-trade were " either fanatics or 
hypocrites," and in one of these classes he ranked 
Wilberforce. Mark now the end. After years of 
weary effort, the slave-trade was filially abolished ; 
and at last, in 1833, the early vindicator of this enor- 
mity, the maligner of a name hallowed among men, 
was brought to give his royal assent, as William IV., 
King of Great Britain, to the immortal Act of Parlia- 
ment, greater far than any victory of war, by which 
slaverv was abolished throughout the British domin- 



312 THE LANDMAEK OF FREEDOM ; 

ions. Sir, time and the universal conscience have vindi- 
cated the labors of Wilberforce. The movement against 
American Slavery, auspicated by the august names of 
Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, can calmly await 
a similar judgment. 

But it is suggested that, in this movement, there is 
danger to the Union. In this solicitude I cannot 
share. As a lover of concord and a jealous partisan 
of all things that make for peace, I am always glad to 
express my attachment to the Union ; but I believe 
that this bond will be most truly preserved and most 
beneficently extended (for I shrink from no expansion 
where Freedom leads the way) by firmly upholding 
those principles of Liberty and Justice which were 
made its early corner-stones. The true danger to this 
Union proceeds, not from any abandonment of the 
" peculiar institution " of the South, but from the 
abandonment of the spirit in which the Union was 
formed ; not from any warfare, within the limits of 
the Constitution, upon Slavery ; but from warfare, 
like that waged by this very Bill, upon Freedom. 
The Union is most precious ; but more precious far 
are that " general welfare," " domestic tranquillity," 
and those " blessings of Liberty," which it was estab- 
lished to secure ; all which are now Avantonly endan- 
gered. Not that I love the Union less, but Freedom 
more, do I now, in pleading this great cause, insist 
that Freedom, at all hazards, shall be preserved. 

One word more, and I have done. The great 
master, Shakespeare, who, with all-seeing mortal eye, 
observed mankind, and with immortal pen depicted 
the manners as they rise, has presented a scene which 
may be read with advantage by all who would plunge 



FREEDOM NATIONAL. 313 

the South into tempestuous quarrel with the North. 
I refer to the well-known dialogue between Brutus 
and Cassius. Reading this remarkable passage, it is 
difficult not to sec in Brutus our own North, and in 
Cassius the South : 

Cas. Urge me no more, I shall forget myself ; 
Have a mind upon your health, tempt me no further. 

Bru. Hear me, for I will speak. 

Mast I give way and room to your rash choler ? 

Cas. ye gods ! ye gods ! ]Must I eudure all this ? 

Bru. All this ? ay, more : Fret, till your proud heart break : 
Go, show your slaves how choleric you are. 
And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge ? 
Must I observe you ? Must I stand and crouch 
Under your testy humor ? 

Cas. Do not jn'esume too much upon my love, 
I may do that I shall be sorry for. 

Bru. You have done that you should be sorry for. 
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats ; 
For I am arra'd so strong in honesty. 
That they pass by me, as the idle wind, 
Which I respect not. 

Cas. A friend should bear his friend's infirmities, 
But Brutus makes mine greater than they are. 

Pru. I do not, till you practise them on :«e. 

Cas. You love me not. 

Bru. I do not like your faults. 

Julius CcBsar, Act iv. Scene 8. 

And the colloquy proceeding, each finally comes to 
understand the other, appreciates his character and 
attitude, and the impetuous gallant Cassius exclaims, 
" Give me your hand ; " to which Brutus replies, 
" And my heart too." Afterwards, with hand and 
heart united, on the field of Philippi tliey together 
upheld the liberties of Rome. 

The North and the South, su*, as I fondly trust, 
27 



314 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM, ETC. 

amidst all differences, will ever have a hand and heart 
for each other ; and, believing in the sure prevalence 
of Almighty Truth, I confidently look forward to the 
good time, M^hen both will unite, according to the senti- 
ments of the Fathers and the true spirit of the Constitu- 
tion, in declaring Freedom and not Slavery National, 
to the end that the Flag of the Republic, wherever it 
floats, on sea or land, within the National jurisdiction, 
may not cover a single slave. Then will be achieved 
that Union contemplated at the beginning, against 
which the storms of faction and the assaults of foreign 
power shall beat in vain, as upon the Rock of Ages ; 
and LIBERTY, seeking a firm foothold, will have at 

LAST whereon TO STAND AND MOVE THE WORLD. 



FINAL PROTEST FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY 

OF NEW ENGLAND AGAINST SLAVERY IN 

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 

SPEECn IN THE SEXATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE NIGHT 
OF THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS 
BILL, 25Tn MAY, 1854. 



The original debate in the Senate, on the Nebraska and Kansas 
Bill, in which Mr. Sumner took part, was closed by the passage 
of that Bill — after a protracted session throughout the night — 
on the morning of Saturday, 4th March, 185-i, by a vote of thirty- 
seven yeas to fourteen nays. The Bill was then sent to the 
House of Representatives for action there. It was there taken up 
and referred to tlie Committee of the Whole ; but, owing to the 
mass of prior business, it became impossible to reach it. Under 
these circumstances a fresh Bill, identical with that which had 
pasvsed the Senate, was introduced and passed the House. This, 
of course, required the action of the Senate. On the 23d May, a 
message from the House announced its passage and asked the 
concurrence of the Senate. It was at once read a first time ; hvA, 
on the objection of Mr. Sumner, its second reading was stopped 
on that day. On the next day, on motion of Mr. Douglas, all 
prior orders were postponed for the purpose of considering it. 
The debate upon it continued during that day and the next. 
Late in the night of the last day, after the Bill had been reported 
to the Senate, and the question had been put by the Chair, 
*' Shall the Bill be engrossed and read a third time ? " Mr. 
SuJLNEE took the floor and said : 

Mr. President : It is now midnight. At this late 
hour of a session drawn out to an unaccustomed length, 

[31;3] 



316 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAYEEY IN 

I shall not fatigue tlie Senate by argument. There is 
a time for all things, and the time for this has passed. 
The determination of the majority is fixed ; but it is 
not more fixed than mine. The Bill which they sustain, 
I oppose. On a former occasion I met it by argument, 
which, though often attacked in debate, still stands 
unanswered and unanswerable. At present, I am 
admonished that I must be content with a few words 
of earnest protest against the consummation of a great 
wrong. Duty to myself, and also to the honored 
Commonwealth, of which I find myself the sole repre- 
sentative in this immediate exigency, will not allo'w 
me to do less. 

But I have a special duty, which I would not omit. 
Here on my desk are remonstrances against the pas- 
sage of this Bill, some of which have been placed in 
my hands since the commencement of the debate to-day, 
and I desire that these voices, direct from the people, 
should be heard. With the permission of the Senate, 
I will ofi'er them now. 

The PRESIDING Officeh (Mr. Stuart in the chair). 
The remonstrances can be received by unanimous 
consent. 

Several Voices. Let them be received. 

The Pkesiding Officer. The Chair hears no ob- 
jection. ' 

Mr. Sumner. Taking advantage of this permission, 
I now present the remonstrance of a large number of 
citizens of New York against the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise. 

I also present the memorial of the religious Society 
of Friends in Michigan, against the passage of the 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 317 

Nebraska Bill, or any other Bill annulling the Missouri 
Compromise Act of 1820. 

I also present the remonstrance of the clergy and 
laity of the Baptist denomination in Michigan and 
Indiana, against the wrong and bad faith contemplated 
in the Nebraska Bill. 

But this is not all. 

I hold in my hand, and now present to the Senate, 
one hundred and twenty-five separate remonstrances, 
from clergymen of every Protestant denomination in 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, and -Connecticut, constituting the six 
New England States. These remonstrances are identi- 
cal in character with the larger one presented by my 
distinguished colleague [Mr. Everett] — whose term 
of ser\dce here ends in a few days, by voluntary resig- 
nation, and who is now detained at home by illness — 
and were originally intended as a part of it, but did 
not arrive in season to be annexed to that interesting 
and weighty document. They are independent in 
form, though supplementary in their nature — helping 
to swell the protest of the pulpits of New England. 

With pleasure and pride I now do this service, and, 
at this last stage, interpose the sanctity of the pulpits 
of New England to arrest an alarming outrage ; be- 
lieving that the remonstrants, from their eminent 
character and influence, as representatives of the intel- 
ligence and conscience of the country, are peculiarly 
entitled to be heard ; and, further, believing that their 
remonstrances, while respectful in form, embody just 
conclusions, botli of opinion and fact. Like them, 
sir, I do not hesitate to protest here against the Bill 
yet pending before the Senate, as a great moral wrong ; 
27* 



318 FINAL PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY IN 

as a breach of public faith ; as a measure full of danger 
to the peace, and even existence of our Union. And, 
sir, believing in God as I profoundly do, I cannot 
doubt that the opening of an immense region to so 
great an enormity as Slavery is calculated to draw 
down upon our country His righteous judgments. 

" In the name of Almighty God, and in His pres- 
ence," these remonstrants ■ protest against the Ne- 
braska Bill. In this solemn language, which has been 
strangely pronounced blasphemous on this floor, there 
is obviously no assumption of ecclesiastical power, as 
has been perversely charged, but simply a devout ob- 
servance of the scriptural injunction : " Whatsoever 
ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the 
Lord." Let me add, also, that these remonstrants, in 
this very language, have followed the example of the 
Senate, which, at our present session, has ratified at 
least one important treaty, beginning with these pre- 
cise words : " In the name of Almighty God." Surely, 
if the Senate may thus assume to speak, the clergy 
may do likewise, without imputation of blasphemy or 
any just criticism, at least in this body. 

But I am unwilling, particularly at this time, to be 
betrayed into anything that shall seem like a defence 
of the clergy. They need no such thing at my hands. 
There are men in this Senate, justly eminent for elo- 
quence, learning and ability ; but there is no man 
here competent, except in his OAvn conceit, to sit in 
judgment on the clergy of New England. Honorable 
Senators, who have been so swift with criticism and 
sarcasm, might profit by their example. Perhaps the 
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], who is not 
insensible to scholarship, might learn from them some- 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 319 

thing of its graces. Perhaps the Senator from Virginia 
[Mr. Mason], who finds no sanction under the Con- 
stitution for any remonstrance from clergymen, might 
learn from them something of the privileges of an 
American citizen. And perhaps the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Douglas], who precipitated this odious 
measure upon the country, might learn from them 
something of political wisdom. Sir, from the first 
settlement of these shores, from those early days of 
struggle and privation — through the trials of the 
Kevolution — the clergy have been associated, not 
only with the piety and the learning, but with the 
liberties of the country. For a long time, New Eng- 
land was governed by their prayers more than by any 
acts of the Legislature ; and at a later day, their voices 
aided even the Declaration of Independence. The 
clergy of our time may speak, then, not only from their 
own virtues, but from the echoes which yet live in the 
pulpits of their fathers. 

For myself, I desire to thank them for their gener- 
ous interposition. They have already done much good 
in moving the country. They will not be idle. In 
the days of the Revolution, John Adams, yearning for 
Independence, said : " Let the pulpits thunder against 
oppression ! " And the pulpits thundered. The time 
has come for them to thunder again. 

There are lessons taught by these remonstrances, 
which, at this moment, should not pass unheeded. The 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade], on the other side of 
the Chamber, has openly declared that the Northern 
Whigs can never again combine with their Southern 
brethren in support of Slavery. This is a good augury. 
The clergy of New England, some of whom, forgetful 



320 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVERY IN 

of the traditions of other days, once made their pulpits 
vocal for the Fugitive Slave Bill, now, by the voices 
of learned divines, eminent bishops, accomplished 
professors and faithful pastors, uttered in solemn 
remonstrance, at last unite in putting a permanent 
brand upon this hateful wrong. Surely, from this 
time forward, they can never more render it any sup- 
port. Thank God for this ! Here is a sign full of 
promise for Freedom. 

These remonstrances have especial significance, when 
it is urged, as has been often done in this debate, that 
the proposition still pending proceeds from the North. 
Yes, sir, proceeds from the North ; for that is its 
excuse and apology. The ostrich is reputed to hide 
its head in the sand, and then vainly imagine its 
coward body beyond the reach of pursuers. In similar 
spirit, honorable Senators seem to shelter themselves 
behind scanty Northern votes, and then vainly imagine 
that they are protected from the judgment of the 
country. The pulpits of New England, representing 
to an unprecedented extent the popular voice there, 
now proclaim that six States protest, with all the 
fervor of religious conviction, against your outrage. 
To this extent, at least, I confidently declare it does 
not come from the North. 

From these expressions, and other tokens which 
daily greet us, it is evident that at last the religious 
sentiment of the country is touched, and, under this 
sentiment, I rejoice to believe that the whole North 
will be quickened with the true life of Freedom. Sir 
Philip Sidney, speaking to Queen Elizabeth of the 
spirit which animated every man, woman and child 
in the Netherlands, against the Spanish power, ex- 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 321 

claimed, " It is the spirit of the Lord, and is irresisti- 
ble." A kindred spirit now animates the free States 
against the Slave Power, breathing everywhere its 
precious inspiration, and forbidding repose under the 
attempted usurpation. I repeat, it is the spirit of the 
Lord, and is irresistible. The threat of disunion, too 
often sounded in our ears, will be disregarded by an 
aroused and indignant people. Ah, sir. Senators vainly 
expect peace. Not in this way can peace come. In 
passing this Bill, as is now threatened, you scatter, 
from this dark midnight honr, no seeds of harmony 
and good- will, but broadcast through the land, dragon's 
teeth, which haply may not, spring up in direful crops 
of armed men, but yet, I am assured, sir, will they 
fructify in civil strife and feud. 

From the depths of my soul, as a loyal citizen and 
as a Senator, I plead, remonstrate, protest, against the 
passage of this Bill. I struggle against it as against 
death ; but, as in death itself, corruption puts on incor- 
ruption, and this mortal body puts on immortality, so 
from the sting of this hour I find assurances of that 
triumph by which Freedom will be restored to her 
immortal birthright in the Republic. 

Sir, the Bill ichich you are now ahout to pass, is at 
once the icorst and the best Bill on which Congress 
ever acted. Yes, sir, worst and best at the same time. 

It is the worst Bill, inasmuch as it is a present 
victory of Slavery. In a Christian land, and in an 
age of civilization, a time-honored statute of Freedom 
is struck down, opening the way to all the countless 
woes and wrongs of human bondage. Among the 
crimes of history, another is about to be recorded, 
which no tears can blot out, and which, in better days, 



322 FINAL PHOTEST AGAINST SLAVEKY IN 

will be read with universal shame. Do not start. 
The Tea Tax and Stamp Act, which aroused the 
patriot rage of our fathers, were virtues by the side of 
your transgression ; nor would it be easy to imagine, 
at this day, any measure which more openly and per- 
versely defied every sentiment of justice, humanity 
and Christianity. Am I not right, then, in calling it 
the worst Bill on which Congress ever acted ? 

But there is another side to which I gladly turn. 
Sir, it is the best Bill on which Congress ever acted ; 
for it annuls all past Compromises with Slavery^ and 
makes all future Compromises impossible. Thus it puts 
Freedom and Slavery face to face, and bids them 
grapple. Who can doubt the result ? It opens wide 
the door of the Future, when, at last, there will really 
be a North, and the Slave Power will be broken ; 
when this wretched Despotism will cease to dominate 
over our Government, no longer impressing itself upon 
everything at home and abroad ; when the National 
Government shall be divorced in every way from 
Slavery, and, according to the true intention of our 
fathers. Freedom shall bo established by Congress 
everywhere, at least beyond the local limits of the 
States. 

Slavery will then be driven from its usurped foot- 
hold here in the District of Columbia, in the National 
Territories, and elsewhere beneath the National flag ; 
the Fugitive Slave Bill, as vile as it is unconstitutional, 
will become a dead letter ; and the domestic Slave- 
trade, so far as it can be reached, but especially on the 
high seas, will be blasted by Congressional Prohibition. 
Everywhere within the sphere of Congress, the great 
Northern Hammer will descend to smite the wrong ; 



NEBKASKA AND KANSAS. 323 

and the irresistible cry will break forth,* " No more 
Slave States ! " 

Thus, sir, now standing at the very grave of Free- 
dom in Nebraska and Kansas, I lift myself to the 
vision of that happy resurrection, by which Freedom 
will be secured, not only in these Territories, but 
everywhere under the National Government. More 
clearly than ever before, I now penetrate that " All- 
Hail- Hereafter," when Slavery must disappear. Proud- 
ly I discern the flag of my country, as it ripples in 
every breeze, at last become in reality, as in name, the 
Flag of Freedom — undoubted, pure and irresistible. 
Am I not right, then, in calling this Bill the best on 
which Congress ever acted ? 

Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you are about 
to commit. Joyfully I welcome all the promises of 
the future. 

When Mr. Sumner took his seat, he was followed by Mr. 
Mason, of Virginia, who spoke as follows : 

I understand that the petitions which the Senator [Mr. Sum- 
ner] who has just taken his seat offers, were to be admitted as 
they were offered by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Two 
of them, when offered, were sent to the President's table. The 
last he has reserved, and made the vehicle for communicating 
the sentiments of tlie pulpits of New England to the Senate, on 
the subject of this Bill. I object to its reception, and I object to 
it, because I understand that Senator to say that it is verbaiini 
the petition that was presented by his honorable colleague who ia 
not now with us, in which the clergy presented themselves in 
this Senate and to the country, as a third estate, speaking not as 
American citizens, but as clergymen, and in that character only. 
I object to its reception. I object to it, that I may not in any 
manner minister to the unchristian purposes of the clergy of 
New England, as the Senator has just announced them. I object 



324 FINAL PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY IN 

to it, that I may be in no manner responsible for the prostitution 
of their ofl5ce, (once called holy and sacred, with them no longer 
so,) in the face of the Senate and of the American people. I 
object to it, that the clergymen of my own honored State, and of 
the South, may, as holding a common office in the ministry of 
the gospel, be in no manner confounded with or contaminated by 
these clergymen of New England, if the Senator represents them 
correctly. 

Sir, if the Senator has represented these clergymen correctly, 
I rejoice that there is to be a separation between the church 
North and the church South ; for, I say, if these men dare to 
lay aside the character of American citizens, and come here pro- 
faning their office, profaning the name of the Almighty, for the 
purpose of political alliances, they are unworthy of their associ- 
ates in the church. Sir, it is the first time in the history of this 
country that a church of any denomination has asserted a right 
to be heard, as a church, upon the floors of legislation ; and if 
the Senator represents that body correctly, they have profaned 
their office, and 1 predict now a total separation between the 
church North and the church South, if I understand the senti- 
ments of the church South. The church there, I know, is yet 
pure in its great and holy mission. When its ministers address 
themselves from the pulpit, they are heard with respect, under 
the sanctity of their office. You find none of them coming here 
to the doors of legislation to mingle in political strife. They 
truly hold themselves " unspotted from the world." 

If the Senator who has just taken his seat has correctly ex- 
pounded the clergymen of New England, I object to that petition. 
If he has correctly stated that it is verbatim copied from the 
petition presented by his colleague, I say it is a prostitution of 
their office to the embrace of political party ; and the Senate 
shall not, by my assent, be made the medium of so unholy an 
alliance. I do not mean to go further into this debate ; but I 
object to the recejition of the petition. 

The Presiding Officer said : The petitions cannot be received 
without unanimous consent. 

Mr. Sumner in reply. It may be, sir, at this 
moment, within the competency of the honorable Sen- 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 325 

ator from Virginia to object to the reception of these 
remonstrances ; but I am satisfied that, at another 
time, his calmer judgment will not approve this course, 
much less the ground on which now, as well as on a 
former occasion, he has undertaken to impeach the 
right of clergymen to appear, by petition or remon- 
strance, at the bar of Congress. Sir, in refusing to 
receive these remonstrances, or in neglecting them in 
any way, on reasons assigned in this Chamber, you 
treat them with an indignity which becomes more 
marked, because it is the constant habit of the Senate 
to welcom^e remonstrances from members of the Society 
of Friends, in their religious character, and from all 
other persons, by any designation which they may 
adopt. Booksellers remonstrate against the interna- 
tional copyright treaty ; last makers against a proposed 
change in the patent laws ; and only lately the tobac- 
conists have remonstrated against certain regulations 
touching tobacco ; and all these remonstrances have 
been received with respect, and referred to appropriate 
Committees in the Senate. But the clergy of New 
England, when protesting against a measure which 
they believe, with singidar unanimity, full of peril and 
shame to our country, are told to stay at home. 
Almost the jeer has gone forth, *' Go up, thou bald 
head ! " If not well, it is at least natural, that the act 
you are about^to commit should be attended by this 
congenial outrage. 

28 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 26tH AND 
28th JUNE, ON THE BOSTON MEMORIAL FOR THE REPEAL 
OF THE FUGITIVE SLATE BILL, AND IN REPLY TO MESSRS. 
JONES, OF TENNESSEE, BUTLER, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND 
MASON, OF VIRGINIA. 



On the 22d June, Mr. Rockwell, of Massachusetts, presented 
the following Memorial, stating that it was signed by twenty- 
nine hundred persons, chiefly of Boston, and moved its reference 
to the Committee on the Judiciary : 

" To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives 
in Congress assembled : The undersigned, meii of Massachusetts, 
ask for the repeal of the Act of Congress of 1850, known as the 
FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL." 

On 2Gth June, on the motion to refer the memorial, a debate 
ensued, in which Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, Mr. Rockwell, of Mas- 
sachusetts, and then again Mr. Jones, took part. At this stage, 
Mr. Sumner, took the floor, and spoke as follows : 

Mr. President : I begin by answering the inter- 
rogatory propounded by the Senator from. Tennessee 
[Mr. Jones]. He asks, " Can any one suppose that, 
if the Fugitive Slave Act be repealed, this Union can 
exist ? " To which I reply at once, that if the Union 
be in any way dependent on an Act — I cannot call it a 
law — so revolting in every regard as that to which he 

[326] 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 327 

refers, then it ought not to exist. To much else tliat 
has fallen from that Senator I do not desire to reply. 
He has discussed at length matters already handled 
again and again in the long drawn out debates of this 
session. Like the excited hero of Macedonia, he has 
renewed past conflicts, 

" And thrice he routed all his foes, 
And thrice he slew the slain." 

Of what the Senator has said on the relations of Sen- 
ators, North and South, of a particular party, it is not 
my province to speak. And yet I cannot turn from it 
without expressing, at least, a single aspiration, that 
men from the North, whether Whigs or Democrats, 
will neither be cajoled or driven by any temptation, or 
lash, from the support of those principles of freedom 
which are inseparable from the true honor and welfare 
of the country. At last, I trust, there will be a back- 
bone in the North. 

My colleague has abeady remarked, that this memo- 
rial proceeds from persons of whom many were open 
supporters of the alleged Compromises of 1850, includ- 
ing even the odious Fugitive Slave Bill. I have looked 
over the long list, and, so far as I can judge, find this 
to be true. And, in my opinion, the change shown by 
these men is typical of the change in the community 
of which they constitute a prominent part. Once the 
positive upholders of the Fugitive Slave Bill, they now 
demand its unconditional repeal. 

There is another circumstance worthy of especial 
remark. This memorial proceeds mainly from persons 
connected with trade and commerce. Now, it is a fact 
too well known in the history of England, and of our 



828 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

own country, tliat these persons, wHle often justly 
distinguislied by their individual charities and munifi- 
cence, have been lukewarm in their opposition to 
Slavery. Twice in English history the " mercantile 
interest" frowned upon the endeavors to suppress the 
atrocity of Algerine Slavery ; steadfastly in England it 
sought to baffle Wilberforce's great effort for the aboli- 
tion of the African Slave-trade ; and, at the formation 
of our own Constitution, it stipulated a sordid com- 
promise, by which this same detested. Heaven-defying 
traffic, was saved for twenty years from American 
judgment. But now it is all changed — at least in 
Boston. The representatives of the " mercantile in- 
terest " place themselves in the front of the new 
movement against Slavery, and, by their explicit me- 
morial, call for the abatement of a grievance which 
they have bitterly felt in Boston. 

Mr. President, this memorial is interesting to me, 
first, as it asks a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and 
secondly, as it comes from Massachusetts. That repeal 
I shall be glad at any time, now and hereafter, as in 
times past, to sustain by vote and argument ; and I 
trust never to fail in any just regard for the sentiments 
or interests of Massachusetts. With these few remarks, 
I would gladly close. But there has been an arraign- 
ment here to-day, both of myself and of the Common- 
wealth which I represent. To all that has been said 
of myself or the Commonwealth — so far as it is an 
impeachment of either — so far as it subjects either to 
any just censure, I plead openly, for myself and for 
Massachusetts, " not guilty." But pardon me, if I do 
not submit to be tried by the Senate, fresh from the 
injustice of the Nebraska Bill. In the language of 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 329 

the common law I put myself upon " God and the 
country," and claim the same trial for my honored 
C o mmon weal tli . 

So far as the arraignment touches me personally, I 
hardly care to speak. It is true that I have not hes- 
itated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere, 
and unequivocal condemnation of the Fugitive Slave 
Bill. I have denounced it as at once a violation of the 
law of God, and of the Constitution of the United 
States ; and I here repeat this denunciation. 

Its violation of the Constitution is manifold. 

It commits the great question of human freedom — 
than which none is more sacred in the law — not to a 
solemn trial, but to summary proceedings. 

It commits this question — not to one of the high 
tribunals of the land — but to the unaided judgment 
of a single petty magistrate. 

It commits this question to a magistrate, appointed, 
not by the President with the consent of the Senate, 
but by the court ; holding his office, not during good 
behavior, but merely during the will of the court ; 
and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according 
to each individual case. 

It authorizes judgment on ex prtr/e evidence, by affi- 
davits, without the sanction of cross-examination. 

It denies the writ of habeas corpus^ ever known as 
the palladium of the citizen. 

Contrary to the declared purposes of the framcrs of 
the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back "at the 
public expense." 

Adding meanness to the violation of the Constitu- 
tion, it bribes the Commissioner by a double fee to 
pronounce against Freedom. If he dooms a man to 
28* 



330 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Slavery, tlie reward is ten dollars ; but, saving him to 
Freedom, his dole is five dollars. 

But this is not all. On two other capital grounds 
do I oppose this Act as unconstitutional ; first, as it is 
an assumption by Congress of powers not delegated by 
the Constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the 
States ; and, secondly, as it takes away that essential 
birthright of the citizen, trial by jury, in a question of 
personal liberty and a suit at common law. Thus ob- 
noxious, I have regarded it as an enactment totally 
devoid of all constitutional obligation, as it is clearly 
devoid of all moral, while it is disgraceful to the 
country and the age. And, sir, I have hoped and 
labored for the creation of such a Public Opinion, firm, 
enlightened and generous, as should render the Act 
practically inoperative, and should press, without ceas- 
ing, upon Congress for its repeal. For all that I have 
said on this head, I have no regrets or apologies ; but 
rather joy and satisfaction. Glad I am in having said 
it ; glad I am now in the opportunity of affirming it all 
anew. Thus much for myself. 

In response for Massachusetts, there are other 
things. Something surely must be pardoned to her 
history. In Massachusetts stands Boston. In Boston 
stands Faneuil Hall, where, throughout the perils 
which preceded the Revolution, our patriot fathers 
assembled to vow themselves to Freedom. Here, in 
those days, spoke James Otis, full of the thought that 
" the people's safety is the law of God." Here, also, 
spoke Joseph Warren, inspired by the sentiment that 
" death with all its tortures is preferable to Slavery." 
And here, also, thundered John Adams, fervid with 
the conviction that " consenting to Slavery is a sacrile- 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 331 

gious breach of trust." Not far from this vcncrahlc 
hall — between this temple of freedom and the very 
court-house, to which the Senator [Mr. Jones] has 
referred — is the street, where, in 1770, the first blood 
was spilt in conflict between British troops and Ameri- 
can citizens, and among the victims was one of that 
African race which you so much despise. Almost 
within sight is Bunker Hill ; further off, Lexington 
and Concord. Amidst these scenes, a Slave-Hunter 
from Virginia appears, and the disgusting rites begin 
by which a fellow-man is doomed to bondage. Sir, 
can you Avonder that the people were moved ? 

" Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious, 
Loyal and neutral, in a moment ? JVo man.^^ 

It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty 
executed, and that one of its servants perished in the 
effort. On these grounds the Senator from Tennessee 
charges Boston with fanaticism. I exprass no opinion 
on the conduct of individuals ; but I do say, that the 
fanaticism, which the Senator condemns, is not new in 
Boston. It is the same which opposed the execution 
of the Stamp Act, and finally secured its repeal. It is 
the same which opposed the Tea Tax. It is the fanat- 
icism which finally triumphed on Bunker Hill. The 
Senator says that Boston is filled with traitors. That 
charge is not new. Boston, of old, was the home of 
Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now are those 
who are truly animated by the spirit of the American 
Revolution. In condemning them, in condemning 
Massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you 
simply give a proper conclusion to the utterance on 



332 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

this floor, that the Declaration of Independence is " a 
self-evident lie." 

Here I might leave the imputations on Massachu- 
setts. But the case is stronger yet. I have referred 
to the Stamp Act. The parallel is of such aptness and 
importance, that, though on a former occasion I pre- 
sented it to the Senate, I cannot forbear from pressing 
it again. As the precise character of this Act may not 
be familiar, allow me to remind the Senate, that it was 
an attempt to draw money from the Colonics through 
a stamp tax, while the determination of certain ques- 
tions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not 
to the courts of common law, but to courts of admi- 
ralty, without trial by jury. This Act was denounced 
in the Colonies at once on its passage, as contrary to 
the British Constitution, on two principal grounds, 
identical in character with the two chief grounds on 
which the Slave Act is now declared to be unconstitu- 
tional ; first, as an assumption by Parliament of pow- 
ers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights 
secured to the Colonies ; and secondly, as a denial of 
trial by jury in certain cases of property. On these 
grounds the Stamp Act was held to be an outrage. 

The Colonies were aroused against it. Virginia first 
declared herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid 
thought " treasonable ;" — yes, sir, " treasonable," — 
even as that word is pow applied to recent manifesta- 
tions of opinion in Boston — even to the memorial of her 
twenty-nine hundred merchants. But these " treason- 
able " resolutions soon found a response. New York 
followed. Massachusetts came next. In an address 
from the Legislature to the Governor, the true ground 
of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident with the 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 333 

two radical objections to the Slave Act, arc clearly set 
forth, with the following pregnant conclusion : 

"We deeply regret that the Parliament has seen fit to pass 
such an Act as the Stamp Act ; we flatter ourselves that the 
hardships of it will shortly appear to them in such a light as 
shall induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it ; in the mean 
lime, we must beg your Excellency to excuse us from doing any- 
thing to assist in the execution of it." 

The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by 
the Tories of that day, precisely as the unconstitutional 
Slave Act has been welcomed by imperious numbers 
among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant Gov- 
ernor and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers 
in England : 

" The Stamp Act is received with as much decency as could 
be expected. It leaves no room for evasion, and will execute 
itself." 

Like the Judges of our day, in charges to Grand 
Juries, he resolutely vindicated the Act, and admonished 
*' the jurors and the people" to obey. Like Governors 
in our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature 
of Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. 
" I shall not," says this British Governor, " enter into 
any disquisition of the policy of the Act. I have only 
to say it is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain." 
Like Marshals of our day, the Officers of the Customs 
are recorded as having made " application for a mili- 
tary force to assist them. in the execution of their duty." 
The elaborate answer of Massachusetts — the work of 
Samuel Adams, and one of the corner-stones of our 
history — was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel 
of wild enthusiasts," even as recent proceedings in 
Boston, resulting in the memorial before you, have 



334 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

been cliaracterized on this floor. Was I not riglit in 
adducing this parallel ? 

The country was aroused against the execution of 
this Act. And here Boston took the lead. In formal 
instructions to her Representatives, adopted unani- 
mously in town meeting at Fanueil Hall, the following 
rule of conduct was prescribed : 

" We, therefore, think it our indispensable duty, in justice to 
ourselves and posterity, as it is our undoubted privilege, in the 
most open and unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to 
declare our greatest dissatisfaction Avith this law. And we think 
it incumbent upon you by no means to join in any public mea- 
sures for countenancing and assisting in the execution of the 
same, but to use your best endeavors in the General Assembly 
to have the inherent, inalienable rights of the people of this 
Province asserted, and vindicated, and left upon the public record, 
that posterity may never have reason to charge the present 
times with the guilt of tamely giving them away. ' ' 

The opposition spread and deepened, and one of its 
natural tendencies w^as to outbreak and violence. On 
one occasion in Boston, it showed itself in the lawless- 
ness of a mob, of a most formidable character, even as 
is now charged. Liberty, in her struggles, is too often 
driven to force. But the town, at a public meeting in 
Fanueil Hall, called without delay, on the motion of 
the opponents of the Stamp Act, with James Otis as 
Chairman, condemned the outrage. Eager in hostility 
to the execution of the Act, Boston cherished municipal 
order, and constantly discountenanced all tumult, vio- 
lence and illegal proceedings. On these two grounds 
she then stood ; and her position was widely recog- 
nized. In reply, March 27, 1766, to an address from 
the inhabitants of Plymouth, her own consciousness of 
duty done is thus expressed : 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 385 

" If the inhabitants of Boston have taken the legal and war- 
rantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the 
most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act, and as a 
necessary means of preventing it, have made any spirited appli- 
cations for opening the custom houses and courts of justice ; if, 
at the same time, they have borne their testimony against out- 
rageous tumults and illegal proceedings, and given any example 
of the love of peace and good oi'der, next to the consciousness of 
having done their duty is the satisfaction of meeting with the 
approbation of any of their fellow-countrymen." 

Thus was the Stamp Act annulled, even before its 
actual repeal, which was pressed wdth assiduity by 
petition and remonstrance, on the next meeting of 
Parliament. Among the potent influences was the 
entire concurrence of the merchants, and especially a 
remonstrance against the Stamp Act by the merchants 
of New York, like that now made against the Slave 
Act by the merchants of Boston. Some sought at first 
only for its modification. Even James Otis began with 
this moderate aim. The King himself showed a dis- 
position to yield to this extent. But Franklin, who 
was then in England, when asked whether the Colonics 
would submit to the Act, if mitigated in certain par- 
ticulars, replied : " No, never, unless compelled by 
force of arms." Then it was, that the great Commoner, 
William Pitt, in an ever-memorable speech, uttered 
words which fitly belong to this occasion. He said : 

" Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in 
America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom 
against this unhappy Act, and that freedom has become their 
crime. Sorry I am to hear the lilierty of speech in this House 
imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage 
me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to 
be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman 
who calumniates it might and ought to have profital- The gentle- 



336 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

man tells us America is obstinate ; America is almost in open 
rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions 
of slaves, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to 
submit to be slaves, would have been fit iustruments to make 
slaves of all the rest. I would not debate a particular point of ' 
law with the gentleman ; but I draw my ideas of Freedom from 
the vital powers of the British Constitution — not from the crude 
and fallacious notions too much relied upon, as if we were but in 
the morning of liberty. I can acknowledge no veneration for 
any procedure, law, or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason 
and the first elements of our Constitution. The Americans have 
been wronged. They have been driven to madness. Upon the 
whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opin- 
ion. It is, that the Statnp Act be repeated, absolutety, totally 
and immediately, and that the reason for the repeal be assigned 
because it was founded on an erroneous principle." 

Thus spoke this great orator, at the time tutelary 
guardian of American liberty. He was not unheeded. 
Within less than a year from its original passage, the 
Stamp Act — assailed as unconstitutional on the pre- 
cise grounds which I now occupy in assailing the Slave 
Act — was driven from the statute book. 

But, sir, the Stamp Act was, at most, an infringe- 
ment of civil liberty only, not of personal liberty. It 
touched questions of property only, but not the personal 
liberty of any man. Under it, no freeman could be 
seized as a slave. There was an unjust tax of a few 
pence, with the chances of amercement by a single 
judge without jury ; but, by this statute, no person 
could be deprived of that vital right of all, which is to 
other rights as the soul to the body — the right of a 
man to himself. As liberty is more than property, as 
man is above the beasts that perish, as heaven is higher 
than earth, so are the rights assailed by an American 
Congress above those once assailed by the British 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 337 

Parliament ; and just in this proportion must be our 
condemnation of the Slave Act by the side of the Stamp 
Act. And this will yet be declared by history. 

I call upon you, then, to receive the memorial, and 
hearken to its prayer. All other memorials asking for 
changes in existing legislation are treated with respect, 
promptly referred, and acted upon. This should not 
be an exception. The memorial simply asks the repeal 
of an obnoxious statute, which is entirely within the 
competency of Congress. It proceeds from a large 
number of respectable citizens whose autograph signa- 
tures are attached. It is brief and respectful in form ; 
and, in its very brevity, shows that sj^irit of freedom 
which should awaken a generous response. In refusing 
to receive it or refer it, according to the usage of the 
Senate, or in treating it with any indignity, you offer 
an affront, not only to these numerous petitioners, but 
also to the great right of petition, which is never more 
sacred than when exercised in behalf of Freedom against 
an obnoxious statute. Permit me to add, that by this 
course you provoke the very spirit which you would 
repress. There is a certain plant which is said to grow 
when trodden upon. It remains to be seen if the Boston 
petitioners have not something of this quality. But this 
I know, sir, that the Slave Act, like vice, is of so hideous 
a mien, that "to be hated it needs only to be seen ; " 
and the occurrences of this day will make it visible and 
palpable to the people in new forms of injustice. 



This speech was followed by an angry debate, of a highly per- 
sonal character, in which Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. 
Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Pettit, of I^liana, Mr. Dixon, of Ken- 
29 



338 DEFENCE OF MASSACHirSETTS. 

tucky, Mr. Mallory, of Florida, and Mr. Clay, of Alabama, took 
part — all directed against Mr. Sumner. On the 28th June, an 
eifort was made to close the debate, or at least to postpone it, 
when Mr. Sumner remarked : 

I am unwilling to stand in the way of the general 
wish of the Senate to go on with, its business. I de- 
sire at all times to promote its business ; but this 
question has been presented and debated. Several 
Senators have already expressed themselves on it. 
Other Senators within my knowledge expect to be 
heard. I too, sir, claim the privilege of being heard 
again in reply to remarks which have fallen from hon- 
orable Senators. I hope, therefore, the memorial will 
have no disposition that will preclude its complete dis- 
cussion. 



SECOND SPEECH. 

The Senate refused to postpone the discussion, and the assault 
on Mr. Sumner went on. At last he obtained the floor and spoke 
as follows : 

Mr. President : Since I had the honor of address- 
ing the Senate two days ago, various Senators have 
spoken. Among these, several have alluded to me in 
terms clearly beyond the sanctions of parliamentary 
debate. Of this I make no complaint, though, for the 
honor of the Senate, at least, it were well that it were 
otherwise. If to them it seems fit, courteous, parlia- 
mentary, 

" to unpack the heart with words. 



And fall a cursing, like a very drab, 
A scullion," 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 339 

I will not interfere with the enjoyment wliich they 
find in such exposure of themselves. They have cer- 
tainly given us a taste of their characters. Two of 
them, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], 
who sits immediately before me, and the Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Mason], who sits immediately behind 
me, are not young. Their heads are amply crowned 
by time. They did not speak from any ebullition of 
youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. It is 
melancholy to believe that, in this debate, they showed 
themselves as they are. It were charitable to believe 
that they are in reality better than they showed them- 
selves. 

I think, sir, that I am not the only person on this 
floor, who, in lately listening to these two self-confident 
champions of the peculiar fanaticism of the South, was 
reminded of the striking words by Jefferson, picturing 
the influence of Slavery, where he says, " The whole 
commerce between master and slave is a perpetual 
exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most 
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading 
submission on the other. Our children see this, and 
learn to imitate it ; for man is an imitative animal. 
The parent storms. The child looks on, catches the 
lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the 
circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to his worst pas- 
sions, and, thus nursed, educated and daily exercised 
in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious 
peculiarities. The man must he a jn'odigj/ who can 
retain his manners and morals undcjjraved hy such cir- 
cumstances.'" Nobody who witnessed the Senator from 
South Carolina or the Senator from Virginia in this 
debate, will place either of them among the " prodigies " 



340 DEFENCE or MASSACHUSETTS. 

described by Jefferson. As tbey spoke, the Senate 
Chamber must have seemed to them, in the character- 
istic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well-stocked 
with slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had 
free swing. Sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these 
things. It is not according to my nature. Bear wit- 
ness, that I do it only in just self-defence against the 
unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. 
And, in doing it, I desire to warn certain Senators, that 
if they expect, by any ardor of menace or by any 
tyrannical frown, to shake my fixed resolve, they ex- 
pect a vain thing. 

There was, perhaps, little that fell from these two 
champions, as the fit was on, which deserves reply. 
Certainly not the hard words they used so readily and 
congenially. The veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. 
Mason] complained that I had characterized one of 
his "constituents" — a person who went all the way 
from Virginia to Boston in pursuit of a slave — as a 
Slave-hunter. Sir, I choose to call things by their 
right names. White I call white, and black I call 
black. And where a person degrades himself to the 
work of chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspira- 
tion of Freedom and the guidance of the north star, has 
sought a freeman's home far away from the coffle and 
the chain — that person, whomsoever he may be, I call 
a Slave-hunter. If the Senator from Virginia, Avho 
professes nicety of speech, will give me any term 
which more precisely describes such an individual, 1 
will use it. Until then, I must continue to use the 
language which seems to me so apt. But this very 
sensibility of the veteran Senator at a j ust term, which 
truly depicts an odious character, shows a shame in 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 3^1 

which I exult. It was said by one of the philosophers 
of antiquity, that a blush is the sign of virtue, and permit 
me to add, that, in this violent sensibility, I recognize 
a blush mantling the cheek of the honorable Senator, 
which even his plantation manners cannot conceal. 

And the venerable Senator from South Carolina, too, 
[Mr. Butler] — he has betrayed his sensibility. Here 
let me say that this Senator knows well that I always 
listen with peculiar pleasure to his racy and exuberant 
speech, as it gurgles forth — sometimes tinctured by 
generous ideas — except when, forgetful of history, 
and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend 
what is obviously indefensible. This Senator was 
disturbed, when to his inquiry, personally, pointedly 
and vehemently addressed to me, whether I would 
join in returning a fellow-man to Slavery, I exclaimed, 
*' Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing ? " 
In fitful phrases, which seemed to come from the un- 
conscious excitement so common with the Senator, he 
shot forth various cries about " dogs ; " and, among 
other things, asked if there was any "dog" in the 
Constitution ? The Senator did not seem to bear in 
mind, through the heady currents of that moment, 
that, by the false interpretation he has fastened upon 
the Constitution, he has helped to nurture there a 
whole kennel of Carolina bloodhounds, trained, with 
savage jaws and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying 
bondmen. No, sir, I do not believe that there is any 
"kennel of bloodhounds," or even any " dog," in the 
Constitution of the United States. 

But, Mr. President, since the brief response which I 
made to the inquiry of the Senator, and whicli leaped 
unconsciously to my lips, has drawn upon me various 
29* 



342 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

attacks, all marked by grossness of language and man- 
ner ; since I have been charged with openly declaring 
my purpose to violate the Constitution, and to break 
the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shall be 
pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words 
will put all this down. The authentic report in the 
Glohe shows what was actually said. The report in 
the Sentinel is substantially the same ; and one of the 
New York papers, which has been put into my hands 
since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under its 
telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial 
accuracy, though it omits the personal individual ap- 
peal addressed to me by the Senator, and which is 
preserved in the Glohe. Here is the New York rejiort : 

" Mr. Butler. I would like to ask the Senator, if Congress 
repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute 
the constitutional requirements, and send back to the South the 
absconding slaves ? 

" Mr. Sumner. Do you ask if I would send back a slave ? 

" Mr. Butler. Why, yes. 

" Mr. Sumner. ' Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this 
thing? ' " 

To any candid mind, cither of these reports renders 
anything further superfluous. The answer is explicit 
and above impeachment. It indignantly spurns a 
service from which the soul recoils ; but it denies no 
Constitutional obligation. But the Senators, who have 
been so swift in misrepresentation and in assault upon 
me as disloyal to the Constitution, deserve to be ex- 
posed, and it shall be done. 

Now, sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the 
authoritative words of Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in 
his memorable veto of the l>ank of the United States. 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 343 

To his course, at that critical time, were opposed the 
authority of the Supreme Court and his oath to svpjmrt 
the Constitution. Here is his triumphant reply : 

*' If tlie opinion of the Supreme Court covers the whole ground 
of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of 
this Government. The Congress, the Executive and the Coui't, 
must each for itself be guided by its owti opinion of tlie Constitu- 
tion. Each jmblic officer, who takes an oath to support the 
Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, 
and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty 
of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the Presi- 
dent, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolu- 
tion, which may be presented to them for passage or approval, 
as it is of the Supreme Judges when it may be brought before 
them for judicial decision. The authority of the Supreme Court 
must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress T)r the 
Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to 
have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may de- 
serve." 

Mark these words, and let them sink into your 
minds. " Each public officer, who takes an oath to 
support the Constitution, swears that he will support 
it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by 
others." Yes, sir, as he uxderstaxds it, cmd not 
as it is understood by others. Does any Senator here 
dissent from this rule ? Docs the Senator from Vir- 
ginia ? Does the Senator from South Carolina ? 
[Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no reply.] 
At all events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable ; 
in harmony, too, let me assert, with that liberty which 
scorns the dogma of passive ohedience, and asserts the 
inestimable right of private judgment, whether in re- 
ligion or politics. In swearing to support the Consti- 
tution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to 
support it as you understand it. Oli. no, sir. Or as 



344 DEFENCE OF ilASSACHUSETTS. 

the Senator from Virginia understands it. Oh, no, sir. 
Or as the Senator from South Carolina understands it, 
with a kennel of bloodhounds ; or, at least, a " dog" 
in it, " pawing to get free its hinder parts," in pursuit 
of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the 
Constitution as I understand it; nor more, nor less. 

Now, I will not occupy your time, nor am I so dis- 
posed at this moment, nor does the occasion require 
it, by entering upon any minute criticism of the clause 
in the Constitution touching the surrender of " fugi- 
tives from service." A few words only are needful. 
Assuming, sir, in the face of commanding rules of 
interpretation, all leaning towards Freedom, that in the 
evasive language of this clause, paltering in a double 
sense, the words employed can be judicially regarded 
as justly applicable to fugitive slaves, which, as you 
ought to know, sir, is often most strenuously and con- 
scientiously denied — thus sponging the whole clause 
out of existence, except as a provision for the return 
of persons actually bound by lawful contract, — but on 
which I now express no opinion ; assuming, I say, this 
interpretauion, so hostile to Freedom, and derogatory 
to the members of the Federal Convention, who 
solemnly declared that they would not yield any 
sanction to Slavery, or admit into the Constitution 
the idea of property in man ; assuming, I repeat, an 
interpretation which every principle of the common 
law, claimed by our fathers as their birthright, must 
disown ; admitting, for the moment only, and with 
shame, that the Constitution of the United States has 
any words, which, in any legal intendment, can con- 
strain fugitive slaves, then I desire to say, that, as I 
understand the Constitution, this clause does not im- 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 345 

pose upon me, as a Senator or citizen, any obligation 
to take part, directly or indirectly, in the surrender of 
a fugitive slave. 

Sir, as a Senator, I have taken at your desk the oath 
to support the Constitution, as I understand it. And 
understanding it as I do, I am bound by that oath, 
Mr, President, to oppose all enactments by Congress 
on the subject of fugitive slaves, as a flagrant viola- 
tion of the Constitution ; especially must I oppose the 
last act as a tyrannical usurpation, kindred in character 
to the Stamp Act, which our fathers indignantly re- 
fused to obey. Here my duties, under the oath which 
I have taken as a Senator, end. There is nothing 
beyond. They are all absorbed in the constant, inflex- 
ible, righteous obligation to oppose every exercise by 
Congress of any power over the subject. In no re- 
spect, by that oath can I be constrained to duties in 
other capacities^ or as a simple citizen, especially when 
revolting to my conscience. Now, in this interpreta- 
tion of the Constitution I may be wrong ; others may 
differ from me ; the Senator from Vii-ginia may diff'er 
from me, and the Senator from South Carolina also ; 
and they will, each and all, act according to their 
respective understandings. For myself, I shall act 
according to mine. On this exj^licit statement of my 
constitutional obligations, I stand, as upon a living 
rock, and, to the inquiry, in whatever form addressed 
to my personal responsibility, whether I would aid, 
directly or 'indirectly, in reducing or surrendering a 
fellow-man to bondage, I reply again, " Is thy servant 
a dog, that he should do this thing? " 

And, sir, looking round upon this Senate, I might 
ask fearlessly, how many there are — even in this 



346 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

body — if, indeed, there be a single Senator, who 
would stoop to any such service r Until some one 
rises and openly confesses his willingness to become a 
Slave-hunter, I mil not believe there can be one. 
[Here Mr. Sumner paused, but nobody rose.] And 
yet honorable and chivalrous Senators have rushed 
headlong to denounce me because I openly declared 
my repudiation of a service at which every manly 
bosom must revolt. " Sire, I have found in Bayonne 
brave soldiers and good citizens, hut not one execu- 
tioner,'''' was the noble utterance of the Governor of 
that place to Charles IX. of France, in response to the 
royal edict for the massacre of St. Bartholomew ; and 
such a spirit, I trust, will yet animate the people of 
this country, when pressed to the service of " dogs ! " 

To that other question, which has been proposed, 
whether Massachusetts, by State laws, will carry out 
the offensive clause in the Constitution, according to 
the understanding of the venerable Senator from South 
Carolina, I reply that Massachusetts, at all times, has 
been ready to do her duty under the Constitution, as 
she understands it ; and, I doubt not, will ever con- 
tinue of this mind. More than this I cannot say. 

In quitting this topic, I cannot forbear to remark 
that the assault on me for my disclaimer of all consti- 
tutional obligation, resting upon me as a Senator or 
citizen, to aid in making a man a slave, or in surren- 
dering him to Slavery, comes with an ill grace from the 
veteran Senator from Virginia, a State which, by its far- 
famed resolutions of 1798, assumed to determine its 
constitutional obligations, even to the extent of openly 
declaring two different Acts of Congress null and void ; 
and it comes also with an ill grace from the venerable 



DEFEXCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 347 

Senator from South Carolina, a State which, in latter 
days, has arrayed itself openly against the Federal au- 
thorities, and which threatens nullification as often as 
babies cry. 

Surely the Senator from South Carolina, with his 
silver-white locks, would have hesitated to lead this 
assault upon me, had he not, -for the moment, been 
entirely oblivious of the history of the State which he 
represents. Not many years have passed since an in- 
cident occurred at Charleston, in South Carolina — not 
at Boston, in Massachusetts — which ought to be 
remembered. The postmaster cf that place, acting 
under a controlling Public Opinion there, informed the 
head of his Department at Washington that he had 
determined to suppress all Anti-slavery publications, 
and requested instructions for the future. Thus, in 
violation of the laws of the land, the very mails were 
rifled, and South Carolina smiled approbation of the 
outrage. But this is not all. The Postmaster Gen- 
eral, Mr. Kendall, after prudently alleging that, as he 
had not seen the papers in question, he could not give 
an opinion of their character, proceeded to say, that he 
had been inforined that they were incendiary, inflam- 
matory and insurrectionary, and then announced : 

" By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be 
induced to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this 
description, directly or indirectly. We owe an obligation to 
ike laws, but a higher one to the communities in -which we live : 
and if the former be perverted to destroy the latter, it is patri- 
otism to disregard them. Entertaining these views, I cannot 
sanction, and ^vill not condemn, the step you have taken." 

Such was the approving response of the National 
Government to the Postmaster of Charleston, when, 



348 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

for the sake of Slavery, and without any constitutional 
scruple, he set himself against an acknowledged law of 
the land ; and yet the venerable Senator from South 
Carolina now presumes to denounce me, when, for the 
sake of Freedom, and in the honest interpretation of 
my constitutional obligations, I decline an offensive 
service. 

But there is another incident in the history of South 
Carolina, which as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I 
cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against 
the venerable Senator. Massachusetts had commis- 
sioned a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and 
eminent professional qualities, who served with honor 
in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoar], to reside at 
Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the 
rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival 
there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provis- 
ions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a 
Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, [Hon. 
William Johnson,] had characterized it as " trampling 
on the Constitution," and " a direct attack upon the 
sovereignty of the United States." Massachusetts had 
read in the Constitution a clause closely associated 
with that touching " fugitives from service," to the 
following effect : " The citizens of each State shall be 
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in 
the several States," and supposed that this would yet 
be recognized by South Carolina. But she was mis- 
taken. Her venerable representative, an unarmed old 
man, with hair as silver-white almost as that of the 
Senator before mc, was beset in Charleston by a " re- 
spectable " mob, prevented from entering upon his 
duties, and driven from the State ; while the Legisla- 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 3 li> 

ture stepped in to sanction tliis shameless, lawless act, 
by placing on the statute book an order for his expul- 
sion. And yet, sir, the excitable Senator from South 
Carolina is fired by the fancied delinquencies of Massa- 
chusetts towards Slave-hunters, and also by my own 
refusal to render them any aid or comfort ; he shoots 
questions in volleys, assumes to measure our duties by 
his understanding, and ejaculates a lecture at Massa- 
chusetts and myself. Sir, before that venerable Sena- 
tor again v\3ntures thus, let him return to his own 
State, seamed all over with the scars of nullification, 
and first lecture there. Ay, sir, let him look into his 
own heart, and lecture to himself. 

But enough for the present on the extent of my 
constitutional obligations to become a Slave-hunter. 
There are, however, yet other things in the assault of 
the venerable Senator, wliich, for the sake of truth, in 
just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom, 
shall not be left unanswered. Alluding to those days 
when Massachusetts was illustrated by Otis, Hancock, 
and " the brace of Adamses ; " when Faneuil Hall sent 
forth echoes of liberty which resounded even to South 
Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Boston 
rose in mutiny against tyranny, the Senator with the 
silver- white locks, in the very ecstasy of Slavery, broke 
forth in the ejaculation that Massachusetts was then 
" slaveholding ; " and he presumed to hail these pa- 
triots as representatives of " hardy, slaveholding Mas- 
sachusetts." Sir, I repel the imputation. It is true 
that Massachusetts was "hardy ; " but she was not, in 
any just sense, " slaveholding." And had she been so, 
she could not have been " hardy." The two charactcr- 
30 



350 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

istics are inconsistent as weakness and strength, as 
sickness and health. — I had ahnost said, as death and 
life. 

The Senator opens a page, which I would willingly 
present. Sir, Slavery never flourished in Massachu- 
setts ; nor did it ever prevail there at any time, even in 
early Colonial days, to such a degree as to be a distinc- 
tive feature in her powerful civilization. Her few 
slaves were merely for a term of years, or for life. If, 
in point of fact, their issue was sometimes held in 
bondage, it was never by sanction of any statute or 
law of Colony or Commonwealth. Such has been the 
solemn judgment of her Supreme Court.* In all her 
annals, no person was ever born a slave on the soil of 
Massachusetts. This, of itself, is a response to the 
imputation of the Senator. 

A benign and brilliant Act of hei* Legislature, as far 
back as 1646, shows her sensibility on this subject. A 
Boston ship had brought home two negroes, seized on 
the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke Massachusetts : 

" The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first 
opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin 
of man-stealing, also to prescribe such timely redress for what 
is past, and such a law for the future as may sufficiently deter 
all those belonging to us, to have to do in such vile and most 
odious conduct, justly ahhorred of all good and just men, do 
order that the negro interpreter, with others unlawfully taken, 
be, by the fir^t opportunity, at the charge of the country, for the 
present, sent to his native country of Guinea, and a letter with 
him of the indignation of the Court thereabout and justice 
thereof" 

The Colony that could issue this noble decree was 
* Laneshoro v. West field, 16 Mass. 74. 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 351 

inconsistent with itself, when it allowed its rocky face 
to be pressed by the footsteps of a single slave. But a 
righteous public opinion early and constantly set its 
face against Slavery. As early as 1701, a vote was 
entered upon the records of Boston to the following 
effect : " The Representatives are desired to promote 
the encouraging the bringing of white servants, and to 
jmt a period to negroes being slaves." Perhaps, in all 
history, this is the earliest testimony from any official 
body against Xcgro Slavery, and I thank God that it 
came from Boston, my native town. In 1705, a heavy 
duty was imposed upon every negro imported into the 
province; in 1712, the importation of Indians as ser- 
vants or slaves was strictly forbidden ; but the general 
subject of Slavery attracted little attention till the begin- 
ning of the controversy, which ended in the Revolu- 
tion, when the rights of the blacks were blended by 
all true patriots with those of the whites. Sparing all 
unnecessary details, suffice it to say, that, as early as 
1769, one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating, 
by several years, the renowned judgment in Somersett's 
case, established within its jurisdiction the principle of 
emancipation and, under its touch of magic power, 
changed a slave into a freeman. Similar decisions 
followed in other places. In 1776, the whole number 
of blacks, both, free and slave, sprinkled thinly over 
"hardy" Massachusetts, was five thousand two hun- 
dred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one is to 
sixty-five; while in " slaveholding " South Carolina 
the number of negro slaves, at that time, was not far 
from one hundred thousand, being nearly one slave for 
every freeman, thus rendering that Colony anything 
but "hardy." At last, in 1780, even before the 



352 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

triumph of Yorktown had led the way to that peace 
which set its seal upon our National Independence, 
Massachusetts, animated by the struggles of the Revo- 
lution, and filled by the sentiments of Freedom, placed 
in front of her Bill of Rights the emphatic words, that 
" all men are born free and equal," and by this declar- 
ation exterminated every vestige of Slavery within her 
borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts, the just and 
generous Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the 
honor to speak. 

Thus, sir, does the venerable Senator err when he 
presumes to vouch Massachusetts for Slavery, and to 
associate this odious institution with the names of her 
great patriots. 

Mr. Rockwell. Will my honorable colleague allow 
me to send to the Chair, and have read in this connec- 
tion with his present remarks, a passage from Graham's 
History of the United States ? 

Mr. Sumner. I do not know the passage to which 
my colleague refers, but I welcome any interruption 
from him. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" Among other subjects of dispute with the British Govern- 
ment and its officers, was one more creditable to Massachusetts 
than even her magnanimous concern for the liberty of her citi- 
zens and their fellow-colonists. Negro Slavery still subsisted in 
every one of the American Provinces, and the unhappy victims 
of this yoke were rapidly multiplied by the progressive extension 
of the slave-trade. Georgia, the youngest of all the States, con- 
tained already fourteen thousand negroes ; and in the course of 
the present year alone, more than six thousand were imported 
into South Carolina. In New England, the number of Slaves 
was very insignificant, and their treatment so mild and humane as 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 353 

ia some measure to veil from the public eye the iniquity of their 
bondage. But the recent discussions Avith regard to liberty and 
the riglits of human nature, were calculated to awaken in gener- 
ous minds a justcr impression of Negro Slavery ; and during 
the latter part of Governor Bernard's administration, a Bill pro- 
hibitory of all traffic in ncgrues was passed by the Massachusetts 
Assembly. Bernard, however, in conformity with his instruc- 
tions from the Crown, refused to affirm tliis law ; and thus op- 
posed himself to the virtue as well as to the liberty of the people 
whom he governed. 

" On three subsequent occasions, laws abolishing the slave- 
trade were passed by the same Assembly during Hutchinson's 
administration ; but all were, in like manner, negatived by the 
Governor. And yet it was at this very period, when Britain 
permitted her merchants annually to make slaves of more than 
fifty thousand men, and refused to permit her Colonies to decline 
a participation in this injustice, that her orators, poets and 
statesmen, loudly celebrate the generosity of English virtue, in 
suffering no slaves to exist on English ground, and the transcend- 
ent equity of her judicial tribunals in liberating one negro who 
had been carried there. Though Massachusetts was thus pre- 
vented from abolishing the slave-trade, the relative discussions 
that took place were by no means unproductive of good. A great 
amelioration became visible in the condition of all the negroes in 
the Province ; and most of the proprietoi's gave liberty to their 
slaves. This just action — for such, and such only, it deserves 
to be termed — has obtained hitherto scai'cely any notice from 
mankind, while the subsequent and similar conduct of the 
Quakers in Pennsylvania has been celebrated with warmth and 
general encomium. So capricious is tlie distribution of fame, 
and so much advantage does the reputation of virtue derive from 
alliance with sectarian spirit and interest." 

Mr. SuMXER. I am. obliged to my colleague. The 
extract is in substantial conformity with clear historic 
truth, which the Senator from South Carolina, in one 
of his oratorical effluxes, has impeached. But the 
venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he 
attributes to " slaveholding " communities a leading 
30* 



354 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

part in those contributions of arms and treasure by 
which independence was secured. Here are his exact 
words, as I find them in the Gloie, revised by himself : 

" Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and 
Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal 
made, and from whom was it answered ? The answer is found 
in the acts of slaveholding States — animis opibusque parati. 
Yes, sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican 
liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and 
good faith of slaveholding communities." 

Mark the language, sir, as emphasized by himself. 
Surely, the Senator with his silver- white locks, all fresh 
from the outrage of the Nebraska Bill, cannot stand 
here and proclaim " the good faith of slaveholding 
communities," except in irony. Yes, sir, in irony. 
And let me add, that when this Senator presumes to 
say that American Independence " was won by the 
arms and treasure of slaveholding communities," he 
speaks either in irony or in ignorance. 

The question which the venerable Senator from South 
Carolina here opens, by his vaunt, I have no desire to 
discuss ; but, since it is presented, I confront it at 
once. This is not the first time, during my brief ser- 
vice here, that this Senator has sought on this floor to 
provoke a comparison between slaveholding commu- 
nities and the free States. 

Mr. BuTLEE. (from his seat). You cannot quote a 
single instance in which I have done it. I have always 
said I thought it was in bad taste, and I have never 
attempted it. 

Mr. Sumner. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always 
listen to him, and I know wherof I aflfirm. He has 
profusely dealt in it. I allude now only to a single 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 35J 

occasion. In his speech on the Nebraska Bill, running 
through two days, it was one of his commonplaces. 
In that he openly presented a contrast between the 
free States and " slaveholding communities," in certain 
essential features of civilization, and directed shafts at 
Massachusetts, which called to his feet my distin- 
guished colleague at that time [Mr. Everett], and 
which more than once compelled me to take the floor. 
And now, sir, the venerable Senator not rising from 
his seat, and standing openly before the Senate, assumes 
to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons. 

Mr. Butler. AYill the Senator allow me ? 

Mr. Sumxer. Certainly ; I yield the floor to the 
Senator. 

Mr. Butler. Whenever that speech is read — and 
I wish the Senator had read it before he commented 
on it with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm — it 
will be found that I was particular not to wound the 
feelings of the Northern people who were sympathizing 
with us in the great movement to remove odious dis- 
tinctions. I was careful to say nothing that would 
provoke invidious comparisons ; and when that speech 
is read, not^^'ithstanding the vehement assertion of the 
honorable Senator, he will find that when I quoted the 
laws of Massachusetts, particularly one Act which I 
termed the toties quoties Act, by which every negro was 
whipped every time he came into Massachusetts, I 
quoted them with a view to show, not a contract 
between South Carolina and Massachusetts, but to 
show that, in the whole of this country, from the be- 
ginning to this time — even in my own State, I made 
no exception — ])ublic opinion had undergone a change, 
and that it had underu:one the same chanire in Massa- 



356 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

chusetts, for at one time fhey did not regard this insti- 
tution of Slavery with the same odium that they do at 
this time. That was the purpose ; and I challenge the 
Senator as an orator of fairness to look at it, and see 
if it is not so. 

Mr. SuMXEB,. Has the Senator done ? 

Mr. BuTEER. I may not he done presently ; but 
*that is the purport of that speech. 

Mr. SuMNEK. AVill the Senator refer to his own 
speech ? He now admits that, under the guise of an 
argument, he did draw attention to what he evidently 
regarded an odious law of Massachusetts. And, sir, 
I did not forget that, in doing this, there was, at the 
time, an apology which ill-concealed the sting. But 
let that pass. The Senator is strangely oblivious of 
the statistical contrasts, which he borrowed from the 
speech of a member of the other House, and which, at 
his request, were read by a Senator before him on this 
floor. The Senator, too, is strangely oblivious of yet 
another imputation, which, at the very close of his 
speech, he shot as a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. 
It is he, then, who is the offender ; and no hardihood 
of denial can extricate him. For myself, sir, I under- 
stand the sensibilities of Senators from slaveholding 
communities, and would not wound them by a super- 
fluous word. Of Slavery I speak strongly, as I must ; 
but thus far, even at the expense of my argument, I 
have avoided the contrasts, founded on details of 
figures and facts, which are so obvious between the 
free States and " slaveholding communities ; " especially 
have I shunned all allusion to South Carolina. But 
the venerable Senator, to whose discretion that State 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 357 

lias intrusted its interests here, will not allow me to 
be still. 

God forbid tbat I should do injustice to South Caro- 
lina. I know well the gallantry of many of her sons. 
I know the response which she made to the appeal of 
Boston for union against the Stamp Act — the Fugitive 
Slave Act of that day — by the pen of Christopher 
Gadsden. And I remember with sorrow that this 
patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her " weak- 
ness in having such a number of slaves," though it is 
to his credit that he recognized Slavery as a " crime." * 
I have no pleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of 
South Carolina ; I do not desire to expose her sores ; 
I would not lay bare her nakedness. But the Senator, 
in his vaunt for " slaveholding communities," has made 
a claim for Slavery which is so inconsistent with his- 
tory, and so derogatory to Freedom, that I cannot allow 
it to pass unanswered. 

This, sir, is not the first time, even during my little 
cxp3rience here, that the same claim has been made on 
this floor ; and this seems more astonishing, because 
the archives of the country furnish such ample and 
undoubted materials for its refutation. The question 
of the comparative contributions of men by diff^crent 
States and sections of the country in the war of the 
llevolution, was brought forward as early as 1790, in 
the first Congress under the Constitution, in the ani- 
mated and protracted debate on the assumption of 
State debts by the Union. On this occasion Fisher 
Ames, a Representative from Massachusetts, memorable 
for his classic eloquence, moved a call upon the AVar 

* Bancroft's History of United States, vol. v. p. 426. 



358 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Department for the number of men furnis"hed by each 
State to the Revolutionary armies. This motion, 
though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small 
majority. Shortly afterwards, the answer to the call 
was received from the Department, at that time under 
the charge of General Knox. This answer, which is 
one of the documents of our history, places beyond 
cavil or criticism the exact contributions in arms of 
each State. Here it is — copied from the first volume 
of the American Archives. 

Statement of the number of troops and militia furnished by the 
several States, for the support of the Revolutionary war, from 
Vllb to 1783, inclusive. 



NoRTHiiiRN States. 


Number 

continent 

troops. 


la 
;<5 


Hi 

o o ■" 
^»8 


Conjectm 

estimate 

militia. 


New Hampshire 


12,496 


2,093 


14,598 


7,300 


Massachusetts 


. • . 67,937 


15,155 


83,092 


9,500 


Rhode Island 


5,908 


4,284 


10,192 


1,500 


Connecticut 


. 32,039 


7,792 


39,831 


3,000 


New York 


17,781 


3,312 


21,093 


8,750 


Pennsylvania 


. 25,608 


7,357 


32,965 


2,000 


New Jersey 


10,727 


6,055 


16,782 


2,500 


Total 


172,496 


46,048 218,553 


30,950 


Southern States. 










Delaware 


. 2,387 


876 


2,763 


1,000 


Maryland 


13,912 


6,464 


19,376 


4,000 


Virginia 


. 26,672 


4,163 


30,835 


21,880 


North Carolina 


7,263 


2,716 


9,969 


12,000 


South Carolina 


. 6,508 




5,508 


28,000 


Georgia 


2,679 




2,679 


9,930 



Total 58,421 12,719 71,130 76,810 

It should be understood that, at this time, there was 
but little difference in numbers between the population 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 359 

of the Southern States and that of the Northern States. 
By the census of 1790, the Southern had a popula- 
tion of 1,956,354 ; the Northern had a population of 
1,968,455. But, notwithstanding this comparative 
equality of population in the two sections, the North 
furnished vastly more men than the South. 

Of continental troops, the Southern States furnished 
58,421 ; the Northern furnished 172,496 ; making 
about three men furnished to the continental army by 
the Northern States to one from the Southern. 

Of militia, whose services are authenticated by the 
War Office, the Southern States furnished 12,719 ; the 
Northern furnished 46,048 ; making nearly four men 
furnished to the militia by the Northern States to one 
from the Southern. 

Of militia, whose services were not authenticated by 
the War Office, but are set down in the return as 
conjectural only, we have 76,810 furnished by the 
Southern States and 30,950 furnished by the North- 
ern ; making, under this head, more than two men 
furnished by the Southern to one from the Northern. 
The cliief services of the Southern States — for which 
the venerable Senator now claims so much — it will 
be observed with a smile, were conjectural only ! 

Looking, however, at the sum total of continental 
troops, authenticated militia and conjectui-al militia, 
we have 147,940 furnished by the Southern States, 
while 249,503 were furnished by the Northern ; 
making 100,000 men furnished to the war by the 
Northern more than the Southern. 

But the disparity swells when we directly compare 
South Carolina and Massachusetts. Of continental 
troops, and authenticated militia, and conjectural milir 



360 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

tia, South Carolina furnislied 33,508, while Massachu- 
setts fui-nished 92,592 ; making in the latter sum 
nearly three men for one furnished by South Carolina. 
Look, however, at the continental troops and the 
authenticated militia furnished by the two States, and 
here you will find only 5,508 furnished by South 
Carolina, while 83,092 were furnished by Massachu- 
setts — hcing sixteen times more than hy South Caro- 
lina, and 7nuch more than hy all the Southern States 
together. Here are facts and figures of which the 
Senator ought not to be ignorant. 

Did the occasion require, I might go further, and 
minutely portray the imbecility of the Southern States, 
and particularly of South Carolina, in the war of the 
Revolution, as compared with the Northern States. 
This is a sad chapter of history, upon which I unwill- 
ingly dwell. Faithful annals record that, as early as 
1778, the six South Carolina regiments, composing, 
with the Georgia regiment, the regular force of the 
Southern Department, did not, in the whole, muster 
above eight hundred men ; nor was it possible to 
fill up their ranks. During the succeeding year, the 
Governor of South Carolina, pressed by the British 
forces, off'ered to stipulate the neutrality of his State 
during the war, leaving it to be decided at the peace 
to whom it should belong — a premonitory symptom 
of the secession proposed in our own day ! At last, 
after the fatal field of Camden, no organized American 
force was left in this region. The three Southern 
States — animis ojnhusque parati, according to the 
vaunt of the Senator — had not a single battalion in 
the field ! During all this period the men of Massa- 
chusetts were serving their country, not at home, but 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 361 

away from their own borders ; for, from the time of the 
Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts never saw 
the smoke of an enemy's camp. 

At last, by the military genius and remarkable ex- 
ertions of General Greene, a Northern man, who 
assumed the command of the Southern army. South 
Carolina was rescued from the British power. But 
the trials of this successful leader reveal, in a striking 
manner, the weakness of the " slaveholding " State 
wliich he saved. Some of these are graphically pre- 
sented in his letters. Writing to Governor Heed, 
of Pennsylvania, under date of 3d May, 1781, he 
says : — 

'* Those whose true interest it was to have informed Congi'ess 
and the people to the northward of the real state of things, have 
joined in tlie deception, and magnified the strength and re- 
sources of this country infinitely above their ability. Many of 
those, who adhere to our party, are so fond of pleasure, that 
they cannot think of making the necessary sacrifices to support 
the Revolution. There are many good and virtuous people to 
the southward ; but they cannot animate the inhabitants in gen~ 
eral, as you can to the northward.'" — Gordon^s History of 
American Revolution, vol. iv. p. 87. 

Writing to Colonel Davies, under date of 23d May, 
1781, he exposes the actual condition of the coun- 
try : — 

" The animosity between the Whigs and Tories of this State 
renders their situation truly deplorable. There is not a day 
passes but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice to this 
savage disposition. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the 
Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen 
in this way in tTiis quarter, and the evil rages with more violence 
than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the 
countiy will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither 
Whig nor Tory can live." 
31 



362 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 29th 
December, 1780, describes the weakness of his troops: 

*' It is now "within a few days of the time you mentioned of 
being with me. Were you to arrive, you would find a few 
ragged, half-starved ti'oops in the wilderness, destitute of every- 
thing necessary for either the comfort or convenience of soldiers.'* 
... " The country is almost laid waste, and the inhabitants 
plunder one another with little less than savage fury. We live 
from hand to mouth, and have nothing to subsist on but what 
we collect with armed parties. In this situation, I believe you 
will agree with me, there is nothing inviting this way, especially 
when I assure you our whole force tit for duty, that are properly 
clothed and properly equipped, does not amount to eight huiidred 
men." — Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. i. p. 340. 

Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, he 
says : — 

** There is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among the 
militia of these Southern States, especially with the volunteers. 
But their mode of going to war is so destructive, that it is the 
greatest folly in the world to trust the liberties of a people to 
such a precarious defence.''^ — Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. i. 
p. 307. 

Nothing can be more authentic or complete than 
this testimony. Here, also, is what is said by David 
Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South Carolina, in his 
History of the Revolution in that State, published in 
1785, only a short time after the scenes which he de- 
scribes : — 

" ^\^lile the American soldiers lay encamped (in the low coun- 
try near Charleston), their tattered rags were so completely 
worn out, that seven hundred of them were as naked as they 
were born, excepting a small strip of cloth about their waists, 
and they were nearly as destitute of meat as of clothing." — 
vol. ii. p. 258. 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 3G3 

The military weakness of this " slaveholding com- 
munity " is too apparent. Learn now its occasion ; 
and then join with me in amazement that a Senator 
from South Carolina should attribute our independence 
to ajiything " slaveholding." The records of the coun- 
try, and various voices, all disown his brag for Slavery. 
The State of South Carolina, by authentic history, 
disowns it. Listen, if you please, to peculiar and 
decisive testimony, under date of 29th March, 1779, 
from the Secret Journal of the Continental Con- 
gress : — 

" The Committee appointed to take into consideration the cir- 
cumstances of the Southern States, and the ways and means fur 
their safety and defence, report, that the State of South Carolina 
(as represented by the Delegates of the said State, and by Mr. 
Iluger, who has come here at the request of the Governor of the 
Baid State, on purpose to explain the circumstances thereof) is 
UNABLE to make any effectual efforts with militia, by reason of 
the great proportion of citizens necessary to remain at home, to 
prevent insurrection among the negroes, and to prevent the de- 
sertion of them to the enemy. That the state of the country, and 
the great number of these people among them, expose the inhabi- 
tants to great danger, from the endeavors of the enemy to excite 
them to revolt or desert." — Vol. i. p. 105. 

Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her mili- 
tary weakness, and its ignoble occasion ; thus repudi- 
ating, in advance, the vaunt of her Senator, who finds 
strength and gratulation in Slavery rather than in 
Freedom. It was during the war that she thus shrived 
herself, on bended knees, in the confessional of the 
Continental Congress. But the same ignominious 
confession was made, some time after the war, in 
open debate, on the floor of Congress, by Mr. Burke, 
a Representative from South Carolina : — 



364 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

"There is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger to 
the feeble situation of our State, when we entered into the war 
to oppose the British power. We were not only without moneys 
without an army or military stores, but we were few in number^ 
arid likely to be entangled with our domestics, in case the enemy 
invaded us."" — Annals of Congress, 1789, 1791, yoI. IL p. 
1484. 

Similar testimony to the weakness engendered by 
Slavery was also borne by Mr. Madison, in open de- 
bate in Congress : — 

" Every addition they (Georgia and South Carolina) receive 
to their number of slaves, tends to weaken them, and render 
them less capable of self-defence.''^ — Jlnnals of Congress, vol. i. 
p. 340. 

The historian of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay, a 
contemporary observer of the very scenes which he 
describes, also exposes this weakness : — 

" The forces under the command of General Provost marched 
through the richest settlements of the State, where are the fewest 
white inhabitants in pi'oportion to the number of slaves. The 
hapless Africans, allured with the hope of Freedom, forsook 
their owners, and repaired in great numbers to the royal army. 
They endeavored to recommend themselves to their new masters 
by discovering where their owners had concealed their property, 
and were assisting in carrying it off." — History of South Caro- 
lina, vol. i. p. 312. 

And the same candid historian, describing the inva- 
sion of the next year, says : — 

"The slaves a s<?co«c? thnQ flocked to the British army." — 
Vol. i. p. 336. 

And at a still later day, Mr. Justice Johnson, of the 
Supreme Court of the I'mtcd States, and a citizen of 



DEFEXCE OF MASSACUUSETTS. 365 

South Carolina, in his elaborate Life of General Greene, 
speaking of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy 
admission. He says : — 

*' But tlie number dispersed througli these (Southern) States 
was very great ; so great, as to render it impossible for the 
citizens to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of 
the British arms.^^ — Vol. ii. p. 472. 

Surely, sir, this is enough, and more. Thus, from 
authentic documents — including the very muster-rolls 
of the Revolution — we learn the small contributions 
of men and the military weakness of the Southern 
States, particularly of South Carolina, as compared 
with the Northern States ; and from the very lips of 
South Carolina, on four different occasions, speaking 
by a Committee ; by one of her representatives in Con- 
gress ; by her historian ; and by an eminent citizen, 
we have the confession not only of weakness, but that 
this weakness was caused by Slavery. And yet, in 
the face of this cumulative and unimpeachable testi- 
mony, we are called to listen, in the American Senate, 
to a high-flying boast, from a venerable Senator, that 
American Independence was achieved by the arms and 
treasure of " slaveholding communities ; " an assump- 
tion, baseless as the fabric of a vision, in any way it 
may be interpreted ; whether as meaning baldly that 
independence was achieved by those Southern States, 
which were the peculiar home of Slavery, or that it 
was achieved by any strength or influence which came 
from that noxious source. Sir, I speak here for a 
Commonwealth of just renown, but I speak also for 
a cause which is more than any Commonwealth, even 
that which I represent : and I cannot allow the Sena- 
;3F 



366 DEFENCE or MASSACHUSETTS. 

tor, with his silver-white locks, to discredit either. 
Not by Slavery, but in spite of it, was independence 
achieved. Not because, but notwithstcmding, there 
were " slaveholding communities," did triumj^h de- 
scend upon our arms. It was the inspiration of Liberty 
Universal that conducted us through the Red Sea of 
the Revolution, as it had already given to the Declara- 
tion of Independence its mighty tone, resounding 
through the ages. " Let it be remembered," said the 
nation, speaking by the voice of the Continental Con- 
gress, at the close of the war, " that it has ever been 
the pride and boast of America, that the rights for 
which she has contended were the rights oe 
HUMAN NATURE !" Ycs, sir, in this behalf, and by 
this sign, we conquered. 

Such, sir, is my answer on this head to the Senator 
from South Carolina. If the work which I undertook 
has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. 
Whatever I undertake, I am apt to do thoroughly. 
But while thus repelling the insinuations against Mas- 
sachusetts-, and the assumptions for Slavery, I Avould 
not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that Sena- 
tor, or of the State which he represents. I cannot 
forget that, amidst all diversities of ojiinion, we are 
bound together by the ties of a common country — 
that Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister States, 
and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between 
them ; but I am constrained to declare, that through- 
out this debate I have sought in vain any token of that 
just spirit which, within tlie sjjhere of its influence, is 
calculated to promote the concord of States or of indi- 
viduals. 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 367 

And now, for the present, I part with the venerable 
Senator from South Carolina. In pursuing his incon- 
sistencies, and exposing them to judgment, I had 
almost forgotten his associate leader in the wanton 
and personal assault to which I have been exposed — 
I mean the veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. 
Mason], who is now directly in my eye. With im- 
perious look, and in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble, 
that Senator has undertaken to call in question my 
statement that the Fugitive Slave Bill denied the writ 
of Habeas Corpus ; and, in doing this, he has assumed 
a superiority for himself which, permit me to tell him 
now in this presence, nothing in him can sanction. 
Sir, I claim little for myself ; but I shrink in no 
respect from any comparison with that Senator, veteran, 
though he be. Sitting near him, as has been my for- 
tune since I have been on this floor, I have come to 
know something of his conversation, something of his 
manners, something of his attainments, something of 
his abilities, something of his character — ay, sir, and 
something of his associations ; and, while I would 
not undertake to disparage him in any of these respects, 
yet I feel that I do not exalt myself unduly — that I 
do not claim too much for the position which I hold, 
or the name which I have established — when I 
openly declare that, as a Senator of Massachusetts, 
and as a man, I place myself at every point in unhesi- 
tating comparison with that honorable assailant. And 
to his peremptory assertion that the Fugitive Slave 
Bill does not deny the Habeas Cojyiis, I oppose my 
assertion, as peremptory as his own, that it docs, and 
there I leave that question. 

Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which the 



368 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Senator from Virginia displays at the exposure of the 
Fugitive Slave Bill in its true character. He is the 
author of that enormity. From his brain came forth 
the soulless monster. He is, therefore, its natural 
guardian. The Senator is, I believe, a lawyer. And 
now, since at last he has shown a parental solicitude 
to shield his offspring, he must do more than vainly 
parry the objection, that it denies the great writ of 
Habeas Corpus. It is true, sir, if anything but Slavery 
were in question, such an objection, if merely plausible, 
would be fatal ; but it is not to be supposed that the 
partisans of an institution founded on a denial of human 
rights, can appreciate the proper efficacy of that writ 
of Freedom. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend 
his progeny ; not by assertion, but by reason. Let 
him rally all the ability, learning and subtlety, which 
he can command, and undertake the impossible work. 
Let him answer this objection. The Constitution, 
by an amendment which .Samuel Adams hailed as a 
protection against the usurpations of the National 
Government, and which Jefferson asserted was our 
*' foundation corner-stone," has solemnly declared that 
*' the powers not delegated to the United States by 
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." Stronger words could not be employed to 
limit the powers under the Constitution, and to pro- 
tect the people from all assumptions of the National 
Government, particularly in derogation of Freedom. 
By the Virginia resolutions of 1798, which the Senator 
is reputed to accept, this limitation of the powers of 
the National Government is recognized and enforced. 
The Senator himself is understood, on all questions 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 369 

not aflfecting the claims of Slavery, to espouse this 
rule in its utmost strictness. Let him now indicate, 
if he can, any article, clause, phrase, or word, in the 
Constitution, which gives to Congress any power to 
establish a " uniform law throughout the United 
States " on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him 
now show, if he can, from the records of the Federal 
Convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such 
power. "Whatever may be its interpretation in other 
respects, the clause on which this Bill purports to be 
founded gives no such power. Sir, nothing can come 
out of nothing, and the Fugitive Slave Bill is, therefore, 
without any source or origin in the Constitution. It 
is an open and unmitigated usurpation. 

And, sir, when the veteran Senator of Virginia has 
answered this objection : when he has been able to 
find in the Constitution a power which is not to be 
found, and to make us see what is not to be seen, then 
let him answer another objection. The Constitution 
has secured the inestimable right of Trial by Jury in 
" suits at common law," where the value in contro- 
versy exceeds twenty dollars. Of course. Freedom is 
not susceptible of pecuniary valuation, therefore there 
can be no question that the claim for a fugitive slave 
is within this condition. In determining what is meant 
by " suits at common law," recourse must be had to 
the common law itself, precisely as we resort to that 
law in order to determine what is meant by " Trial by 
Jui-y." Let the Senator, if he be a lawyer, now under- 
take to show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, 
according to the early precedents and writs — well 
known to the framers of the Constitution, especially 
to Charles Cotcsworth Pinckncy and John Rutlcdgo, 



370 DEFEXCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

of Soutli Carolina, both of whom had studied law at 
the Temple — a suit at common laiv, to which, under 
the solemn guaranty of the Constitution, is attached 
the Trial by Jury, as an inseparable incident. Let the 
Senator undertake to show this, if he can. 

And, sir, when the veteran Senator has found a 
power in the Constitution where none exists, and has 
set aside the right of Trial by Jury in a suit at com- 
mon law, then let him answer yet another objec- 
tion. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, a claim for a fugitive slave is declared 
to be a case under the Constitution, within the judicial 
power ; and this judgment of the court is confirmed by 
common sense and common law. Let the Senator 
undertake to shov.% if he can, how such an exalted ex- 
ercise of judicial power can be confided to a single petty 
magistrate, appointed, not by the President, with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, but by the Court ; 
holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely 
during the will of the Court ; and receiving, not a 
regular salary, but fees according to each individual 
case. Let the Senator answer this objection, if, in any 
way, by any twist of learning, logic, or law, he can. 

Thus, sir, do I present the issue directly on this 
outrageous enactment. Let the author of the Fugitive 
Slave Bill meet it. He will find me ready to follow 
him in argument, though I trust never to be led, even 
by his example, into any departure from those courte- 
sies of debate which are essential to the harmony of 
every legislative body. 

Such, Mr. President, is my response to all that has 
been said — in this debate — so far as I deem it in 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 371 

any way wortliy of attcution. To the two associate 
chieftains in this personal assault, the veteran Senator 
from Virginia, and the Senator from South Carolina 
with the silver-white locks, I have replied completely. 
It is true that others have joined in the cry, which 
these associates first started ; but I shall not be tempted 
further. Some there are who are best answered by 
silence ; best answered by withholding the words 
which leap impulsively to the lips. 

And now, turning my back upon these things, let 
me, as I close, dwell on a single aspect of this discus- 
sion which will render it memorable. On former occa- 
sions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently 
assailed, or practically denied. Only two years ago, 
memorials for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, 
presented by me, were laid on your table, Mr. Presi- 
dent, without reference to any Committee. All is 
changed now. Senators have condemned the memo- 
rial, and sounded the cry of " treason," " treason," in 
our ears ; but thus far, throughout this excited debate, 
no person has so completely outraged the spirit of our 
institutions, or forgotten himself, as to persevere in 
objecting to the reception of the memorial, and its 
proper reference. It is true, the remonstrants and 
their representatives here have been treated with in- 
dignity ; but the great right of petition — the sword 
and buckler of the citizen — though thus discredited, 
has not been denied. Here, sir, is a triumph for 
Freedom. 



STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE 
SLAVE BILL 

m THE BEXATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 31ST JULY, 1854. 

The efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress have encoun- 
tered opposition at every stage. The presentation of petitions 
by John Quincy Adams was thwarted in every way that vin- 
dictive rage could prompt. All propositions for the repeal of 
obnoxious laws sustaining Slavery have been stifled. To accom- 
plish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law 
have both been set at defiance. On a former occasion, (see ante^ 
p. 74,) when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the 
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, he was refused a hearing ; and 
he obtained it only by taking advantage of the Civil and Diplo- 
matic Appropriation Bill, and moving an amendment to it, which 
no pai'liamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of 
order. On the pi-esentation of petitions against the Fugitive 
Slave Bill, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. 
Meanwhile, anything for Slavery was always in order. An ex- 
perience of a single day will show something of this. 

On the 31st July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under 
instructions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a Bill, 
which had already passed the House of Representatives, for the 
relief of Betsey Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband 
had died of wounds received in the the war of 1812, and asked 
for its immediate consideration. This simple measure, demanded 
by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongi'uous 
proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr. Adams, of Missis- 
sippi, moved, as an amendment, another BQl, for the relief of 
Mrs. Batchelder, the widow of a person who had been killed in 
Boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the 
Fugitive Slave Bill. In the face of various objections this amend- 

[372] 



STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL, ETC. 373 

raent was adopted. Mr. Sumner at once followed by a propo- 
sition in the following words : 

" Provided, that the Act of Congress, approved 18th Sept. 
1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, 
and the same hereby is repealed." 

But this was ruled out of order, as " not germane to the Bill 
under consideration ; ' ' and the two Bills, hitched together — 
one for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the 
widow of a Slave-Hunter — were put on their passage. Mr. 
Sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which 
is minutely reported in the Congressional Globe. The careful 
reader will observe that, in order to cut oflf an effort to repeal 
the Fugitive Slave Bill, at least two unquestionable rules of 
parliamentary law were overturned. 

Mr. SuMXER. In pursuance of notice, I now ask 
leave to introduce a Bill. 

Mr. Stuart. I object to it, and move to take up 
the River and Harbor Bill. 

The Presiding Officer. The other Bill is not 
disposed of. The third reading of a Bill for the relief 
of Betsey Nash. 

The Bill was then read a third time and passed. 

Mr. Sumner. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave 
to introduce a Bill, which I now send to the table. 

Mr. Stuart. Is that in order ? 

Mr. Sumner. Why not ? 

Mr. Benjamin. There is a pending motion of the 
Senator from Michigan to take up the River and Har- 
bor Bill. 

The Presiding Officer. That motion was not 
entertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts 
had and has the floor. 

Mr. Stuart. I make the motion now. 
32 



374 STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair thinks it is 
in order to give the notice. 

Mr. Sumner. Notice has been given, and I now, 
in pursuance of notice, introduce the Bill. The ques- 
tion is on its first reading. 

The Presiding Officer. The first reading of a 
Bill. 

Mr. NoRRis. I rise to a question of order. 

Mr. Sumner. I believe I have the floor. 

Mr. NoRRis. But I rise to a question of order. I 
submit that that is not the question. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has given notice that he would 
ask leave to introduce a Bill. He now asks that 
leave. If there be objection, the question must be 
decided by the Senate whether he shall have leave or 
not. Objection is made, and the Bill cannot be read. 

Mr. Sumner. Very well ; the first question, then, 
is on granting leave, and the title of the Bill will be 
read. 

The Presiding Officer (to the Secretary). Read 
the title. 

The Secretary read it as follows : " A Bill to repeal 
the Act of Congress approved 18th September, 1850, 
for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor." 

The Presiding Officer. The question is on 
granting leave to introduce the Bill. 

Mr. Sumner. And I have the floor. 

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. Sumner. I shall not occupy much time ; nor 
shall I debate the Bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, 
after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston, 
signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without dis- 



OF THE rUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 375 

tinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at some 
day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a Bill for the 
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, 
not to proceed in that matter prematurely, I awaited 
the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which 
the memorial, and others of a similar character, were 
referred. At length an adverse report was made, and 
accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report 
down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity 
to introduce this Bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a 
former session, sir, in introducing a similar proposition, 
I considered it at length, in an argument ■which I fear- 
lessly assert — 

Mr. Gwix. I rise to a point of order. Has the 
Senator a right to debate the question, or say anything 
on it until leave be granted ? 

The Presiding Officer. My impression is that 
the question is not debatable.* 

Mr. SuMXER. I propose simply to explain my Bill, 
to make a statement, not an argument. 

Mr. GwiN. I make the point of order. 

The Presiding Officer. I am not aware pre- 
cisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but 
I have the impression that the Senator cannot de- 
bate — 

Mr. Sumner. The distinction is this — 

Mr. Gavin. I insist upon the application of the 
decision of the Chair. 

Mr. Mason. Mr. President, there is one rule of 
order that is undoubted : that when the Chair is stat- 

* Nothing is clearer, under tlie rules of the Senate, than that 
Mr. Sumner was in order when, on introducing his Bill, he pro- 
ceeded to state the causes for doing it. 



376 STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL 

ing a question of order, he must not be interrupted by 
a Senator. There is no question about that rule of 
order. 

The Presidij^^g Officer. The Senator did not 
interrupt the Chair. 

Mr. Sumxer. The Chair does me justice in re- 
sponse to the injustice of the Senator from Virginia. 

The Presiding Officer. Order, order ! 

Mr. Masox. The Senator is doing that very thing 
at this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the 
authority of the Chair, which certainly has been vio- 
lated. 

The Presiding Officer. It is the opinion of the 
Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not pre- 
cisely informed of what the rule is ; but such is my 
clear impression. 

* Mr. Walker. If the Senator from Massachusetts 
will allow me, I will say a word here. 

Mr. Sumner. Certainly. 

Mr. Walker. It is usual, upon notice being given 
of intention, to ask leave to introduce a Bill. The 
Bill is sent to the Chair, and it is taken as a matter of 
course that the Senator asking it has leave. But in 
this instance, differing from the usual practice, objec- 
tion has been made to leave being granted. The 
necessity is imposed, then, of taking the sense of the 
Senate on granting leave to the Senator to introduce 
his Bill. That, then, becomes the question. The 
question for the Chair to put is, Shall the Senator 
have leave ? 

The Presiding Officer. That was the question 
proposed. 

Mr. Walker. Now, sir, it does seem to me that 



OF THE rUGITIVE SLAVE UlLL. 377 

it is proper, and that it is in order, for the Senator to 
address himself to the Senate, with the view of show- 
ing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. He 
has a right to show that there would be propriety on 
the part of the Senate in granting the leave. I think, 
therefore, as this may become a precedent in future in 
regard to other matters, that it should be settled with 
some degree of deliberation. 

Mr. Gwix. Let the Chair decide the question. 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair has decided 
that debate was not in order, in his opinion. 

Mr. Sumner. From that decision of the Chair, I 
most respectfully take an appeal. 

The Presiding Officer. From that ruling of the 
Chair an appeal is taken by the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts. The question is on the appeal. 

Mr. Benjamin. In order to put a stop to the 
whole debate, I move to lay the appeal on the table, 
That is a motion which is not debatable. 

Mr. Sumner. Is that motion in order ? 

The Presiding Officer. Certainly it is in order.* 

Mr. Weller, I desire to make one remark in 
regard to the rule. 

The Presiding Officer. It is not in order now. 
The question must be taken without debate. 

Mr. Sumner. Allow me to state the case as it 
seems to me. I was on the floor, and yielded it to 
the Senator from Wisconsin strictly for the purpose of 
an explanation. When he finished I was in posses- 

* The motion was clearly out of onler. In the Senate an 
appeal from the decision of the Chair on ai^iuestion of oi'der cannot 
be laid on the table. 
32* 



378 STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL 

sion of the floor ; and then it was that the Senator 
from Louisiana, on my right — 

The Presiding Officer. Will the Senator from 
Massachusetts give leave to the Chair to explain ? 

Mr. Sumner. Certainly. 

The Presiding Officer. A point of order was 
made by the Senator from California [Mr. Gwin], 
that debate was not in order upon the question of 
granting leave ; and the Chair so decided. The Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts then lost the floor, as I appre- 
hend, and he certainly did by following it up by an 
appeal. After that he could go no further. He lost 
the floor then again for a second time, and then it was 
that the Senator from Louisiana intervened with an- 
other motion, which is certainly in order, to lay the 
appeal on the table. That is not debatable. This, it 
seems to me, is the state of the case. 

Mr. Chase. Will the Chair allow me to make a 
single statement ? 

The Presiding Officer. Certainly. 

Mr. Chase. The Senator from Massachusetts rose 
and held the floor during the suggestion made to the 
Chair by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Chair 
then, after the Senator from Wisconsin had finished 
his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwith- 
standing the suggestion, that debate M'as not in order. 
The Senator from Massachusetts then took an appeal, 
and retained the floor for the purpose of addressing the 
Senate on that appeal. While he occupied the floor, 
the Senator from Louisiana rose and moved to lay the 
appeal upon the table. That will be borne out by the 
the gentlemen presetit. 

The Presiding Officer. That is so ; but the 



OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 379 

Chair does not understand that debate was in order on 
the appeal. The appeal was to be decided without 
debate, and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts 
necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal. 

Mr. Bell. I would inquire whether there is not a 
Bill already pending for the repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave Law ? 

The PxiESiDixG Officer. I have not inquired of 
the Secretary ; but it is my belief there is a similar 
Bill pending ; but it was not on that ground the Chair 
made this ruling. 

Mr. Bell. I would inquire whether there is not 
such a Bill pending ? Did not the honorable Senator 
from Ohio some time ago bring in such a Bill .^ 

Mr. Weller. I think he did. 

Mr. Chase. No, sir. 

Mr. Bell. Then I am mistaken. 

Mr. Chase. My Bill is not on that subject. 

The Presiding Officer. The question is on the 
motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the 
table the appeal taken by the Senator from Massachu- 
setts from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. Chase. I ask if the motion of the Senator 
from Louisiana is in order when the Senator from 
Massachusetts retained the floor for the purpose of 
debating the appeal ? 

Mr. Bexjamin. The Senator is not in order in 
renewing that question, which has already been decided 
by the Chair, 

The Presiding Officer. If the Chair acted 
under an erroneous impression in supposing that debate 
on the appeal was not in order, when it actually is, it 
was the fault of the Chair, and it would not have been 



380 STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL 

in order for the Senator from Louisiana to make the 
motion which he did make, while the Senator from 
Massachusetts was on the floor. But the Chair recog- 
nized the Senator from Louisiana, supposing that the 
Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. 
The Senator had taken an appeal ; he followed it up 
by no address to the Chair, indicating an intention 
that he intended to debate the appeal, or the Chair 
certainly should so far have recognized him. But the 
Chair would reconsider his ruling in that respect, with 
the consent of the Senator from Louisiana. 

Mr. Bright. The Chair will permit me to suggest 
that I think the motion proper to be entertained now 
is the one proposed by the Senator from New Hamj)- 
shirc [Mr. Norris]. The Senator from Massachusetts 
presented his Bill, the Senator from New Hampshire 
raised the question as to whether the Senate would 
grant leave to introduce it ; and I think the proper 
question to be put now is, will the Senate grant leave 
to introduce a Bill repealing the Fugitive Slave Law ? 
The eff'ect of the motion of the Senator from Louisiana 
would be to lay the subject on the table, from which 
it might be taken at any time for action. For one, I 
desire to give a decisive vote now, declaring that I am 
unwilling to legislate upon the subject, that I am satis- 
fied with the law as it reads, and that I will not aid 
the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator in — 

The Presiding Ofeicer. The Senator from Indi- 
ana is certainly not in order. 

Mr. Bright. I certainly am in order in calling the 
attention of the Chair to the fact that the Senator from 
New Hampshire — 



OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 381 

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Indi- 
ana is not in order. 

Mr. Bright. Then I will sit down and ask the 
Chair to state wherein I am out of order ? 

The Presiding Officer. In discussing a ques- 
tion which is not before the Senate. 

Mr. Bright. I claim that the motion is before the 
Senate. The Senator from New Hampshire raised the 
question immediately that — 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair decides 
otherwise. 

Mr. Bright. Then I appeal from the decision of 
the Chair, and I state this as my point of order : that 
before the Bill was presented in legal parlance, the 
Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as 
to whether the Senate would grant leave, and that is 
the point now before the Senate. 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair will state 
the question which he supposes to be pending. The 
Senator from California made a point of order that 
debate on the Bill proposed to be introduced by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, was not in order. The 
Chair so ruled. From that ruling the Senator from 
Massachusetts took an appeal. The Chair supposed 
that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the 
floor, and he gave the floor to the Senator from Louis- 
iana, who moved to lay that appeal on the table. That 
is the question which is now pending. The Chair be- 
fore suggested that if the Senator from Massachusetts 
had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in 
giving the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, but he 
did not suppose that the Senator from Massachusetts, 
after taking the appeal, without some indication of his 



382 STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL 

intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, 
and he therefore recognized the Senator from Louisiana. 
The Chair is sorry if he did the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts injustice in that respect, but he did not hear 
him, and recognized the Senator from Louisiana. 

Mr. Bright. I would respectfully ask the Chair 
what has become of the motion submitted by the Sen- 
ator from New Hampshire ? 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair did not 
understand him to submit a motion, but the Senator 
from California took his point of order. 

Mr. Bright. I wish to inquire of the Senator 
from New Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his 
motion ? 

The Presiding Officer. It was not entertained. 
It is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn 
or not, for it was not entertained. 

Mr. NoRRis. I think I can inform my friend from 
Indiana how the matter stands. The Senator from 
Massachusetts proposed to introduce a Bill on notice 
given. I raised the question that it could not be intro- 
duced without leave of the Senate, if there was objec- 
tion. 

Mr. Sumner. Do I understand the Senator to say 
without notice given ? I asked leave to introduce the 
Bill in pursuance of notice. 

Mr. NoRRis. The Senator from Massachusetts, I 
have already stated, offered his Bill agreeably to pre- 
vious notice. 

Mr. Sumner. Precisely. 

Mr. NoRRis. The question was then raised, whether 
it could be received if there was objection. The ques- 



OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 38.'3 

tion arose whether leave should be granted to the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts to introduce the Bill ? 

Mr. SuMNEii. That is the first question. 

Mr. NoRRis. The Senator from Massachusetts, 
upon the question of granting leave, undertook to 
address the Senate. He was then called to order by 
my friend from California, for discussing that question. 
The Chair sustained the objection of the Senator from 
California. From the decision of the Chair the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts took an aj^peal, and that is 
Avhere the question now stands, unless the Senator 
from Louisiana had a right to make the motion which 
he did make, which was to lay the appeal on the 
table. 

The Peesidixg Officer. The question is, unless 
the Senator from Louisiana will disembarrass the Chair 
by withdrawing it, on the motion of the Senator from 
Louisiana, to lay the appeal on the table. 

Mr. Sumner. On that motion I ask for the yeas 
and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Foot. On what motion have the yeas and 
nays been ordered ? 

The Presiding Officer. On the motion of the 
Senator from Louisiana. 

Mr. AValker. I wish to know, before voting, what 
Avill be the effect of a vote given in the afhrinative on 
this motion ? Will it carry the Bill and the whole 
subject on the table ? 

Mr. Foot. An affirmative vote carries the whole 
measure on the table. 

The Presiding Officer. Yes, sir; if the motion 



384 STRUGGLE i'OR THE REPEAL 

to lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the Bill 
with it. 

Several SE]srATOiis. No, no. 

Mr. Bexjamiis". The question is whether, on the 
motion for leave to introduce the Bill, there shall be 
debate ? The Chair has decided that there shall be no 
debate. Those who vote " yea " on my motion to 
lay the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on 
the table, mil vote that there is to be no debate upon 
the permission to offer the Bill, and then the question 
will be taken upon granting leave. 

Mr. Walker. The Chair decides differently. The 
Chair decides, if I understand, that it will carry the 
Bill on the table. Then, how can we ever reach the 
question of leave when objection is made ? 

Mr. Weller. I object to this discussion. The 
Chair will decide that question when it arises. It 
does not arise now. I insist that the Secretary shall 
go on and call the roll. 

Mr. Walker. Suppose some of us object to it ? 

Mr. Weller. Then I object to your discussing 
it. 

The Presiding Officer. The Chair, on reflection, 
thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a 
further effect than to bring up the question of granting 
leave. 

Mr. Bright. I desire to understand the Chair. I 
do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or 
that is not within the rules. That I insist upon hav- 
ing. The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right 
in his conclusions as to his motion, pro\ided he had 
a right to make the motion ; but I doubt whether he 
had a right to make that motion while the motion of 



OF Tin: FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 385 

the lionorable Senator from New Hampshire was pend- 
ing. I do not Avish, however, to consume the time of 
the Senate. If the effect of the decision of the Chair 
is to bring us back to the question as to whether we 
shall receive the Bill or not, I will yield the floor. 

The Presiding Officer. That is it. 

Mr. Bright. Very well. 

Mr. Sumner. Before the vote is taken, allow me 
' to read a few v>'ords from the Rules and Orders, and 
from Jefferson's Manual. 

'* One day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended 
motion for leave to bring in a Bill." 

That is the 25th rule of the Senate, and then to that 
rule, in the publication which I now hold in my hand, 
is ajjpended, from Jefferson's Manual, the following 
decisive language : 

" When a member desires to bring in a Bill on any subject, 
he states to the House, in general terms, the causes for doing it, 
and concludes for leave to bring in a Bill entitled, &c. Leave 
being given, on the question, a Committee is appointed to pre- 
pare and bring in the Bill." 

Now, I would simply observe, that my purpose was 
merely to make a statement — 

Mr. Bexjamix. I call to order. 

The Presiding Officer. The Senator had pre- 
sented his Bill, and was debating it afterwards. The 
question is now on the motion of the Senator from 
Louisiana, to lay the appeal on the table ; and on that 
the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted 
— yeas 35, nays 10 ; as follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Adams, Atchinson, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, 
38 



386 STRUGGLE FOK THE REPy.AL 

Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, 
Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, 
of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, 
Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, 
Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey and Weller — 35. 

Nats — Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gillette, Rock- 
well, Seward, Sumner, Wade and Walker — 10. 

So the appeal was ordered to lie on the table. 

The Presiding Officer. The question now is 
on granting leave to introduce the Bill. 

Mr. SuMXER. On that question I ask for the yeas 
and nays. 

Mr. Stuart. I rise to a question of order ; and I 
think if the Chair will consider it for the moment, he 
will, or, at least, I hope he will, agree with me. The 
parliamentary law is the law under which the Senate 
act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the 
table a subject connected with the main subject, and it 
prevails, it carries the whole question with it. It is 
different entirely from the rule in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. The rules in the House vary the parlia- 
mentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter 
on the table, because that is the final vote, and is 
equivalent to rejecting it, and a motion to take it up 
from the table is not in order. But now the Presiding 
Officer will see that if this course be pursued, the 
Senate may grant leave to introduce this Bill, they 
may go on and pass it, and yet next week it will be in 
order for the Senator from Massachusetts to move to 
take up the appeal which the Senate has just laid on 
the table ; whereas the whole subject on which his 
appeal rested might have been passed and sent to the 
other House. That surely cannot be so. The ruling 
of the Chair in this respect, therefore, I suggest is 



OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 387 

"Nvrong, and tlie motion to lay on the table carries the 
whole subject with it. It is important to have the 
matter settled for the future practice of the Senate. 

The Pkesidixg Officer. At the first mooting of 
the proposition, the Chair was of that opinion ; but he 
is perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole 
question with it. The question was on the motion to 
lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was ex- 
hausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It 
did not reach back to affect the question of granting 
leave. That is now the question before the Senate. 
On that the yeas and nays have been asked for by the 
Senator from Massachusetts. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Stuart. I will not take an appeal from the 
decision of the Chair, but I only wish to say that as I 
am satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing 
in the decision of the Chair, to embarrass us when such 
occasions may arise again. 

The question being taken by yeas and nays upon 
granting leave to introduce the Bill, resulted — yeas 
10, nays 35 ; as follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, 
Gillette, Rockwell,- Seward, Sumner, Wade and Walker — 10. 

Nays — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, 
Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, 
Fitzpatrick, Gejer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of 
Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, 
Busk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thom- 
son, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey and Weller — 35. 

So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce 
the Bill. 



THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE 
PRESENT CRISIS. 

SPEECH BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WOR- 
CESTER, 7th SEPTEMBER, 1854.* 



Mr. Pkesident and Fellow-Citizens or Massa- 
chusetts : After montlis of anxious, constant service 
in another place, away from Massachusetts, I am per- 
mitted again to stand among you, my fellow-citizens, 
and to draw satisfaction and strength from your gener- 
ous presence. (Applause.) Life is full of changes 
and contrasts. From slave soil I have come to free 
soil. (Aj3plause.) From the tainted hreath of Slavery 
I have passed to this bracing air of Freedom. (Ap- 
plause.) And the heated antagonism of debate, 
shooting forth its fiery cinders, is changed into this 
brimming, overflowing welcome, where I seem to lean 
on the great heart of our beloved Commonwealth, as 
it palpitates audibly in this crowded assembly. (Loud 
and long applause.) 

Let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that I 
have not come here to receive applause or to give 
occasion for any tokens of public regard ; but simply 

* Tliis speech is copied from the newspapers of the day. 

[3bS] 



THE DUTIES OE MASSACHUSETTS, ETC. '639 

to unite with my fcllow-citizcns in new vows of duty. 
(Applause.) And yet I would not be thought insen- 
sible to the good will now swelling from so many 
honest bosoms. It touches me more than I can 
tell. 

During the late session of Congress, an eminent 
supporter of the Nebraska Bill said to me, with great 
animation, in language which I give with some pre- 
cision, that you may appreciate the style as well as the 
sentiment : "I would not go through all that you do 
071 this nigger qaestio?!, for all the offices and honors 
of the country."' To which I naturally and promptly 
replied : " Nor would I for all the offices and honors 
of the country." (Laughter and long applause.) Not 
in such things can be found the true inducements to 
this warfare. For myself, if I have been able to do 
anything in any respect not unworthy of you, it is 
because I thought rather of those commanding duties 
which are above office and honor. (Cries of good, 
good, and loud applause.) 

And now, on the eve of an important election in 
this State, we have assembled to take counsel together, 
in order to determine how best to perform those duties 
which we owe to our common country. We are to 
choose eleven Representatives in Congress ; also. 
Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and members of the 
Legislature, which last will choose a Senator of the 
United States, to uphold, for five years ensuing, the 
principles and honor of Massachusetts. If in these 
elections you were to be governed merely by partiali- 
ties or prejudices, whether personal or political, or 
merely by the exactions of party, 1 should have 
nothing to say now, except to dismiss you to your 



390 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ignoble work. (That is it, good, good.) But I as- 
sume that you are ready to renounce these influences 
and press forward with a single regard to those duties 
which are now incumbent upon us in National afl'airs, 
and also in State affairs. 

And here two questions occur which absorb all 
others. First, what are our political duties here in 
Massachusetts at the present time ? and secondly, how, 
and by what agency shall they be performed ? What, 
and how ? These are the two questions of M'hich 
I shall briefly speak, in their order, attempting no 
elaborate discussion, but simply aiming to state the 
case so that it may be intelligible to all who hear 
me. 

And first, what are our duties here in Massachusetts, 
at the present time ? In unfolding these, I need not 
dwell on the wrong and shame of Slavery, or on the 
character of the Slave Power — that Oligarchy of 
slaveholders — which now rules the Republic. These 
you understand. And yet there are two outrages 
fresh in your recollection, which I must not fail to 
expose, as natural manifestations of Slavery and the 
Slave Power. One is the repeal of the Prohibition of 
Slavery in the vast Missouri T(5rritory, now known as 
Kansas and Nebraska, contrary to time-honored com- 
pact and plighted faith. The other is tlie seizure of 
Anthony Burns, on the free soil of Massachusetts, 
and his surrender, without judge or jury, to a Slave- 
hunter from Virginia, to be thrust back into perpetual 
bondage. (Shame ! shame !) These outrages cry aloud 
to Heaven, and to the people of Massachusetts. (Sen- 



AT THE TRESEXT CRISIS. 391 

sation.) Their intrinsic wickedness is enhanced by 
the way in which they were accomplished. Of the 
first, I know something from personal observation ; 
of the latter, I am informed only by public report. 

It is characteristic of the Slave Power never to stick 
at any means supposed to be needful in carrying for- 
ward its plans ; but never, on any occasion, were its 
assumptions so barefaced and tyrannical as in the 
passage of the Nebraska Bill. 

This Bill was precipitated upon Congress without 
one word of public recommendation from the Presi- 
dent, — without notice or discussion in any newspaper, 
— and without a single petition from the people. It 
was urged by different advocates, on two principal 
arguments, so opposite and inconsistent, as to slap each 
other in the face. (Laughter.) One being that, by 
the repeal of the prohibition, the territory would be 
absolutely open to the entry of slaveholders with their 
slaves ; and the other being that the people there 
would be left to determine whether slaveholders should 
enter with their slaves. "With some, the apology was 
the alleged rights of slaveholders ; with others, it was 
the alleged rights of the people. With some, it was 
openly the extension of Slavery ; and with others, 
openly the establishment of Freedom, under the guise 
of " popular sovereignty.'' Of course, the measure, 
thus upheld in defiance of reason, was carried through 
Congress, in defiance of all the securities of legis- 
lation. 

It was carried, first, by whipping in to its support, 
through executive influence and patronage, men who 
acted against their own declared judgment, and the 
known will of their constituents; secomUy, hy foisting 



392 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

oat of place, both in the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives, important business, long pending, and 
usurping its room ; thirdly, by trampling under foot 
the rules of the House of Representatives, always 
before the safeguard of the minority ; and fourthly, by 
driving it to a close during the present Congress, so 
that it might not be arrested by the indignant voice of 
the j)eople. Such are some of the means by which 
the Nebraska Bill w^as carried. If the clear will of the 
people had not been disregarded, it could not have 
passed. If the Government had not nefariously inter- 
posed its influence, it could not have passed. If it 
had been left to its natural place in the order of 
business, it could not have passed. If the rules of the 
House and the rights of the minority had not been 
violated, it could not have passed. If it had been 
allowed to go over to another Congress, when the 
people might be heard, it would have been ended — 
all ended. 

Contemporaneously with the final triumph of this 
outrage — on the very night of the passage of the 
Nebraska Bill at Washington — another scene, begin- 
ning a dismal tragedy, was enacted at Boston. In 
those streets where he had walked as a freeman, 
Anthony Burns was seized as a slave — under the 
base pretext that he was a criminal — imprisoned in 
the court-house, w^hich was turned for the time into a 
fortress and barracoon — guarded by heartless hirelings, 
whose chief idea of liberty was the license to do wrong 
— (loud applause and cries of " that's it ! " " that's 
it ! " &c.) — escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United 
States — watched by a prostituted militia — and finally 
given up to a Slave-hunter by the decree of a petty 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 39.3 

magistrate, who did not hesitate to take upon his soul 
the awful responsibility of dooming a fellow-man, in 
whom he could find no fault, to a fate worse than 
death. How all tliis was accomplished, I need not 
minutely relate. Suffice it to say, that in doing this 
deed of woe and shame, the liberties of all our citizens, 
white as well as black, were put in j eopardy — the 
Mayor of Boston was converted to a tool — (applause) 
— the Governor of the Commonwealth to a cipher — 
(long continued applause) — the laws, the precious 
sentiments, the religion, the pride and glory of Massa- 
chusetts were trampled in the dust, and you and I and 
all of us fell down while the Slave Power flourished 
over us. (Shame, shame, and applause.) 

These things, in themselves are bad — very bad ; 
but they are worse when regarded as the natural off- 
spring of the Oligarchy which now sways the country. 
And it is this Oligarchy which, at every political hazard, 
we must oppose. Already its schemes of new aggran- 
dizement are displayed. With a watchfulness that 
never sleeps, and an activity that never tires — Avith as 
many eyes as Argus, and as many arms as Briareus — 
the Slave Power asserts its perpetual supremacy ; now 
threatening to wrest Cuba from Spain, by violent war, 
or hardly less violent purchase ; now hankering for 
another slice of Mexico, in order to give new scope 
to Slavery ; now proposing once more to open the 
hideous, heaven-defying slave-trade, and thus to re- 
plenish its shambles with human flesh ; and now by 
the lips of an eminent Senator asserting an audacious 
claim to the whole group of the AVcst Indies, whether 
held by Holland, Spain, France or England, as " our 
Southern Islands,'' while it assails the independence 



394 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

of Hayti, and stretches its treacherous ambition even 
to the distant Valley of the Amazon. 

In maintaining its power, it has applied a new test 
for office, very different from that of Jefferson — "Is 
he honest ? is he capable ? is he faithful to the consti- 
tution ? " None of these things are asked, but simply, 
" Is he faithful to Slavery ? " ( Cries of " That's a 
fact.") With arrogant ostracism it excludes from every 
office all who cannot respond to this test. So complete 
and irrational has this tyranny become, that, at this 
moment, while I now speak, could Washington, Jeffer- 
son or Franklin, once more descend upon the earth 
and mingle in its affairs to bless us with their wisdom, 
not one of them, with his recorded opinions on Slavery, 
could receive a nomination for the Presidency, from a 
National Convention of either of the great political 
parties, nor, stranger still, could he be confirmed by 
the Senate for any political function under the Govern- 
ment. Had this test prevailed in earlier days, Wash- 
ington could not have been made Commander-in-Chief 
of the American army ; Jefferson could not have taken 
his place on the Committee to draft the Declaration of 
Independence ; and Franklin could not have been sent 
to France with the commission of the infant republic, 
to secure the invaluable alliance of that powerful king- 
dom. 

In view of these things, our duties are manifest. 
First and foremost, the Slave Power itself must be 
overthrown. Lord Chatham once exclaimed, in stirring 
language, that the time had been when he was content 
to bring France to her knees ; now he would not stop 
till he had laid her on her back. Nor can we be con- 
tent with less in our warfare. We must not stop till 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 395 

we have laid the Slave Po^yer on its back. (Prolonged 
cheers.) And, fellow-citizens, permit me to say, not 
till then will the Free States be absolved from all 
political responsibility for Slavery, and relieved from 
that corrupt spirit of compromise which now debases, 
at once, their politics and their religion ; nor till then 
will there be any repose for the country. (Immense 
cheering.) Indemnity for the past, and security for 
the future, must be our watchwords. (Applause.) 
But these can be obtained only when Slavery is dis- 
possessed of its present vantage-ground, by driving it 
back exclusively within the limits of the States, and 
putting the National Government everywhere within 
its constitutional sphere, openly, actively and perpetu- 
ally, on the side of Freedom. The consequences of 
this change of policy would be of incalculable and 
far-reaching beneficence. Not only would Freedom 
become national and Slavery sectional, as was intended 
by our fathers ; but the National Government would 
become the mighty instrument and spokesman of 
Freedom, as it is now the mighty instrument and 
spokesman of Slavery. Its powers, its treasury, its 
patronage, would all be turned, in harmony with the 
Constitution, to promote Freedom. The Committees of 
Congress, where Slavery now rules, — Congress itself, 
and the Cabinet also, — would all be organized for 
Freedom. The hypocritical disguise or renunciation of 
Anti-Slavery sentiment would cease to be necessary 
for the sake of political preferment ; and the Slavehold- 
ing Oligarchy, banished from the National Government, 
and despoiled of its ill-gotten political consequence, 
without ability to punish or reward, would cease to be 
feared, either at the North or the South, until at last 



396 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the citizens of the Slave States, of wliom a large 
portion liave no interest in Slavery, would demand 
Emancipation ; and the great work would commence. 
Such is the obvious course of things. To the over- 
throw of the Slave Power we are thus summoned by 
a double call, one political and the other philan- 
thropic ; first, to remove an oppressive tyranny from 
the National Government, and secondly, to open the 
gates of Emancipation in the Slave States. (Loud ap- 
plause.) 

But while keeping this great purpose in view, we 
must not forget details. The existence of Slavery any 
where within the National jurisdiction — in the Terri- 
tories — in the District of Columbia — or on the high 
seas beneath the national flag, is an unconstitutional 
usurpation, which must be opposed. The Fugitive 
Slave Bill, monstrous in cruelty, as in unconstitution- 
ality, is a usurpation, which must be opposed. The 
admission of new Slave States, from whatsoever quar- 
ter, from Texas or Cuba (applause), Utah or New 
Mexico, must be opposed. And to every scheme of 
Slavery, whether in Cuba, or Mexico, — on the high 
seas in opening the slave-trade — in the West Indies 
— the Valley of the Amazon, — Avhether accomplished 
or merely plotted, whether pending or in prospect, we 
must send forth an everlasting NO ! (Long con- 
tined applause.) Such is the duty of Massachusetts, 
without hesitation or compromise. 

Thus far I have spoken of our duties in national 
matters ; but there are other duties of pressing im- 
portance, here at home, which must not be forgotten 
or postponed. It is often said that " charity should 
begin at home." Better say, that charity should begin 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 397 

everywhere. But while contending with the Slave 
Power on the broad field of national politics, we must 
not forget the duty of protecting the liberty of all who 
tread the soil of Massachusetts. (Immense cheering.) 
Early in colonial history, Massachusetts set her face 
against Slavery. At the head of her Bill of Rights 
she solemnly asserted, that all men are born free and 
equal ; and in the same declaration, surrounded the 
liberties of all within her borders by the inestimable 
rights of trial by jury and Habeas Corpus. But recent 
events on her own soil have taught the necessity of new 
safeguards to these great principles, — to the end that 
Massachusetts may not be a vassal of South Carolina 
and Virginia — that the Slave-hunter may not range 
at will among us, and that the liberties of all may not 
be violated with impunity. 

But I am adrtionished that I must not dwell longer 
on these things. Suffice it to say, that our duties, in 
National and State affau's, are identical, and may be 
described by the same formula : In the one case to put 
the National Government, in all its departments, and 
in the 'other case the State Government, in all its 
departments, openly, actively and perpetually, on the 
side of Freedom. (Loud applause.) 

Having considered what our duties are, the question 
now presses upon us, hoiu shall they be performed ? 
By what agency, by what instrumentality, or in what 
way? 

The most obvious way is by choosing men to repre- 
sent us in the National Government, and also at home, 
who shall recognize these duties and be ever loyal to 
them (cheers) ; men who at Washington will not 
34 



398 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

shrink from the conflict with Slavery, and also other 
men, who, at home in Massachusetts will not shrink 
from the same conflict when the Slave-hunter appears. 
(Loud applause, and cries of "good," "good.") But 
in the choice of men, we are di'iven to the organization 
of parties ; and here the question arises, by what form 
of organization, or by what party, can these men be 
best secured ? Surely not by the Democratic party, as 
at present constituted (laughter) ; though if this party 
were true to its name, pregnant with human rights, it 
would leave little to be desired. In this party there 
are doubtless individuals who are anxious to do all in 
their power against Slavery ; but, indulge me in say- 
ing that, so long as they continue members of a party 
whieh upholds the Nebraska Bill, they can do very 
little. (Applause and laughter.) What may we ex- 
pect from the Whig party ? (A voice — Resolutions.) 
If more may be expected from the Whig party than 
the Democratic party, candor must attribute much of 
the diflerence to the fact that the Whigs are out of 
power ^ while the Democrats are in power. (Long con- 
tinued cheers.) If the cases were reversed, and the 
Whigs were in power, as in 1850, I fear that, notwith- 
standing the ardor of individuals, and the llesolutions 
of Conventions — (great laughter) — made, I fear, too 
often merely to be broken — the party might be brought 
to sustain an outrage as great as the Fugitive Slave 
Bill ! (Laughter and applause.) But without dwell- 
ing on these things, (to which I allude with diffidence, 
and, I trust, in no uncharitable temper, or partisan 
spirit,) I desire to say that no party, which calls 
itself national^ according to the common acceptance of 
the word, — which leans upon a slaveholding wing. 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 399 

(cheers) or is in combination with slaveholders, — 
(cheers) can at this time be true to Massachusetts. 
(Great applause.) And the reason is obvious. It 
can be presented so as to cleave the most common 
understanding. The essential element of such a party, 
whether declared or concealed, is Compromise ; hut our 
duties require all constitutional opposition to Slavery 
and the Slave Power, without Compromise. (" That's 
it," "good," "good.") It is difficult, then, to sec 
how we can rely upon the Whig party. 

To the true-hearted, magnanimous men who are 
ready to place Freedom above Party, and their Country 
above Politicians, I appeal. (Immense cheering.) 
Let them leave the old parties, and blend in an organ- 
ization, which, without compromise, will maintain the 
good cause surely to the end. Here in Massachusetts 
a large majority of the people concur in sentiment on 
Slavery ; a large majority desire the overthrow of the 
Slave Power. It becomes them not to scatter their 
votes, but to unite in one firm, consistent j)halanx, 
(applause,) whose triumph shall constitute an epoch of 
Freedom, not only in this Commonwealth, but through- 
out the land. Such an organization is now presented 
by this Republican Convention, which, according to 
the resolutions by which it is convoked, is to co-operate 
with the friends of Freedom in other States. (Cheers.) 
As Republicans we go forth to encounter the Oligarchs 
of Slavery. (Great a2)plause.) 

Through this organization we may most certainly 
secure the election of men, who, unseduccd and un- 
terrified, will uphold at Washington the princij)les of 
Freedom and who also here at home, in our own com- 
munity, by example, influence and vote, will help to 



400 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

invigorate Massachusetts. Indeed, I might go further 
and say, that, by no other organization can we reason- 
ably hope to obtain such men, unless in rare and ex- 
ceptional cases. 

Men are but instruments. It will not be enough 
merely to choose those who are loyal. Other things 
must be done here at home. In the first place, all the 
existing laws for the protection of human freedom 
must be rigorously enforced ; (applause, and cries of 
*' good,") and, since these have been found inadequate, 
new laws for this purpose, within the limits of the 
constitution, must be enacted. Massachusetts certainly 
might do well in following Vermont, which, by a 
special law, has placed the fugitive slave under the 
safeguard of trial by jury, and the writ of habeas cor- 
pus. But a legislature true to Freedom, will not fail 
in remedies. (Applause.) A simple prohibition, 
declaring that no person, holding the commission of 
Massachusetts, as a Justice of the Peace, or other 
magistrate, should assume to act as a Slave-hunting 
Commissoner, or as counsel of any Slave-hunter, under 
some proper penalty, would go far to render the exist- 
ing Slave Bill inoperative. (Applause.) There are not 
many, so fond of this base trade as to continue in it 
when the Commonwealth has thus set upon it a legisla- 
tive brand. 

But besides more rigorous legislation. Public Opinion 
must be invoked to step forward and throw over the 
fugitive its protecting panoply. A Slave-hunter will 
then be a by-word and reproach ; and all his instru- 
ments, especially every one who volunteers in this 
vileness, without any positive obligation of law, will 
naturally be regarded as a part of his pack, and share 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 401 

the ignominy of the chief hunter. (Laughter and 
cheers.) And now, from authentic example, drawn 
out of recent history, learn how the Slave-hunter may 
be palsied by contrition. I take the story from the 
late letters on Neapolitan affairs by the eminent Eng- 
lish statesman, Mr. Gladstone ; and he has copied it 
from an Italian writer. A most successful member of 
the Italian police, Bolza, of the hateful tribe, known 
as sJi'rr/, whose official duties involved his own per- 
sonal degradation and the loathing of others, has left 
a record of the acute sense which even such a man 
retained of his shame. "• I absolutely forbid my heirs,'' 
says this penitent official, " to allow any mark of what- 
ever kind, to be placed over the spot of my burial ; 
much more any inscription or epitaph. I recommend 
my dearly beloved wife to impress upon my children 
the injunction, that, in soliciting any employment from 
the Government, they shall ask for it elsewhere than 
in the executive 'police, and not, unless under extraordi- 
nary circumstances, to give her consent to the marriage 
of any of my daughters with a member of that service." 
Thus testifies the Italian instrument of legal wrong. 
Let public opinion here in Massachusetts once put 
forth its Christian might, and every instrument of the 
Fugitive Slave Act will feel a kindred shame. (Great 
applause.") 

But it is sometimes gravely urged, that since the 
Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the 
constitutionality of the Fugitive Act, there only rc- 
rnains to us in all places, whether in public station or 
in private life, the duty of absolute submission. Yes, 
sir, that is the assumption, which you will perceive 
is applicable to the humblest citizen, — who holds 
34* 



402 THE DUTIES OE MASSACHUSETTS 

no office and has taken no oath, to support the Consti- 
tution, — as well as to the public servant, who is under 
the special obligations of an official oath. Now, with- 
out stopping to consider the soundness of their judg- 
ment, affirming the constitutionality of this Act, let 
me say that the Constitution of the United States, as 
I understand it, exacts no such passive ohedience. 
And, in taking the oath to support the Constitution, I 
have sworn to support it as I understand it, and not as 
other men understand it. (Loud applause. When it 
had subsided, it was followed by three rousing cheers 
for Sumner.) 

In adopting this rule, which was first authoritatively 
enunciated by Andrew Jackson, when, as President of 
the United States, in the face of the decisions of the 
Supreme Court, he asserted the unconstitutionality of 
the Bank, I desire to be understood as not acting 
hastily. Let me add, that if it needed other authority 
in its support, it has that also of the distinguished 
Cabinet by which he was then surrounded, among 
whom were that unsurpassed jurist, Edward Livings- 
ton, Secretary of State, and that still living exemplar 
of careful learning and wisdom, Roger B. Taney, then 
Attorney General, now Chief Justice of the United 
States. But beyond these, it has the unquestionable 
authority of Thomas Jefferson, by whom, as President 
of the United States, it was asserted again and again 
as a rule of conduct. Thus if any person at this day 
be disposed to deal sharply with me on account of the 
support which I now most conscientiously give to this ^ 
rule, let him remember that his. thrusts will pierce not 
only myself, the humblest of its supporters, but also 
the great fame of Andrew Jackson and of Thomas 



AT THE PRESENT CltlSlS. 403 

Jefferson — patriots both of eminent life and authority, 
on whose Atlantean shoulders this principle of Consti- 
tutional law will ever firmly rest. 

But reason here is in harmony with authority. From 
the necessity of the case I must swear to support the 
Constitution, citlier as I do understand it, oi as I do 
NOT understand it. (Laughter.) But the absurdity 
of dangling on the latter horn of the dilemma, com- 
pels me to take the former — and there is a natural 
end of the argument. (Great laughter and cheers.) 
Is there a person in Congress or out of it, in the 
National Government or State Government, who, when 
this inevitable alternative is presented to him, will 
venture to say that he swears to support the Constitu- 
tion as he does not understand it ? (Laughter and 
applause.) The supposition is too preposterous, liut 
let me ask gentlemen who are disposed to abandon 
their own understanding of the Constitution, to submit 
their conscience to the standard of other men, by whose 
understanding do they swear ? Surely not by that of 
the President. This is not alleged. But by the 
understanding of the Supreme Court. In other words, 
to this Court, consisting at present of nine persons, is 
committed a power of fastening such interpretation as 
they see fit upon any part of the Constitution — adding 
to it or subtracting from it — or positively varying its 
requirements — actually making and unmaking the 
Constitution ; and all good citizens must bow to their 
work as of equal authority with the original instrument, 
ratified by solemn votes of the whole people ! (Great 
applause.) If this be so, then the oath to support the 
Constitution of the United States is hardly less offen- 
sive than the famous " et cet?ra *' oath devised by 



404 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Archbishop Laud, in which the subject swore to cer- 
tain specified things, with an " &;c " added. Such an 
oath I have not taken. (Good, good.) 

The power of our Supreme Court is great, and its 
sphere is vast ; but there are limits to its power and 
its sphere. According to the words of the Constitu- 
tion, " the judicial power shall extend to all cases in 
law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the 
laws of the United States, and Treaties ; " but it by 
no means follows, that the interpretation of the Con- 
stitution which may be incident to the trial of these 
" cases " is final. Of course, the judgment in the 
" case " actually pending is final, as the settlement of 
a controversy, for weal or woe to the litigating parties ; 
but as a jjrecede7it it is not final even on the Supreme 
Court itself. When cited afterwards it will be re- 
garded with respect as an interpretation of the Consti- 
tution, and, if nothing appears against it, of controlling 
authority ; but, at any day, in any litigation, at the 
trial of any " case," it will be within the unquestion- 
able competency of the Court to review its own decision, 
so far as it estahlishes any interpretation of the Con- 
stitution. But if the Court itself be not constrained 
by its own precedents, how can the co-ordinate branches 
of the Government, who are respectively under oath to 
support the Constitution, and who, like the Court 
itself, may be called within their respective spheres, 
incidentalli/ to interpret the Constitution, be constrained 
by them ? In both instances, the power to intcrjDrct 
the Constitution is simply incident to other principal 
duties, as the trial of " cases," the making of laws, or 
the administration of Government, and it seems as 
plainly incident to a " case " of legislation or of ad- 



i. 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 405 

ministration, as to one of the " cases " of litij^ation. 
And on this view I shall act with entire confidence 
under the oath which I have taken. 

For myself, let me say, that I hold judges, and 
especially the Supreme Court of the country, in much 
respect ; but I am too familiar with the history of 
judicial proceedings to regard them with any super- 
stitious reverence. (Sensation.) Judges are but men, 
and in all ages have shown a full share of human 
frailty. Alas ! alas ! the worst crimes of history have 
been perpetrated under their sanction. The blood of 
martyrs and of patriots, crying from the ground, sum- 
mons them to judgment. It was a judicial tribunal 
which condemned Socrates to drink the fatal hemlock, 
and which pushed the Saviour barefoot over the pave- 
ments of Jerusalem, bending beneath his cross. It 
was a judicial tribunal which, against the testimony 
and entreaties of her father, surrendered the fair Vir- 
ginia as a slave ; Avhich arrested the teachings of the 
great Apostle to the Gentiles, and sent him in bonds 
from Judea to Rome ; which, in the name of the Old 
Eeligion, adjudged the saints and fathers of the Chris- 
tian Church to death, in all its most dreadful forms ; 
and which, afterwards, in the name of the New Religion, 
enforced the tortures of the Inquisition, amidst the 
shrieks and agonies of its victims, while it compelled 
Galileo to declare — in solemn denial of the great 
truth he had disclosed — that the earth did not move 
round the sun. It was a judicial tribunal which, in 
France, during the long reign of her monarchs, lent 
itself to be the instrument of every tyranny, as during 
the brief reign of terror it did not hesitate to stand 
forth the unpitying accessary of the unpitying guillo- 



406 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

line. Ay, sir, it Avas a judicial tribunal in England, 
surrounded by all the forms of law, which sanctioned 
every despotic caprice of Henry the Eighth, from the 
unjust divorce of his queen, to the beheading of Sir 
Thomas More ; which lighted the fires of persecution 
that glowed at Oxford and Smithfield, over the cinders 
of Latimer, Ridley and John Rogers ; which, after 
elaborate argument, upheld the fatal tyranny of ship 
money against the patriot resistance of Hampden ; 
which, in defiance of justice and humanity, sent Sidney 
and Russell to the block ; which persistently enforced 
the laws of Conformity that our Puritan Fathers per- 
sistently refused to obey ; and which, afterwards, with 
Jeffries on the bench, crimsoned the pages of English 
history with massacre and murder — even with the 
blood of innocent woman. Ay, sir, and it was a 
judicial tribunal in our own country, surrounded by 
all the forms of law, which hung witches at Salem — 
which afiirmed the constitutionality of the Stamp Act, 
while it admonished "jurors and the people " to dhey ^ 
— and which now, in our day, has lent its sanction to 
the unutterable atrocity of the Fugitive Slave BUI. y 
(Long continued applause, and three cheers for Sum- 
ner.) 

Of course the judgments of courts are of binding 
authority upon inferior tribunals and their own execu- 
tive ofiicers, whose virtue does not prompt them to 
resign rather than aid in the execution of an unjust 
mandate. Over all citizens, whether in public or private 
station, they will naturally exert, as precedents^ a com- 
manding influence. This I admit. But no man, who 
is not lost to self-respect, and ready to abandon that 
manhood which is shown in the Heaven-directed coun- 



AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. 407 

tcnancc, will voluntarily aid in enforcing a judgment, 
which, in his conscience, he believes to be wron"'. 

o 

Surely he will not hesitate to " obey God rather than 
man,"' and calmly abide the perils which he may pro- 
voke. Not lightly, not rashly will he take the grave 
responsibility of open dissent ; but if the occasion 
requires, he will not fail. Pains and penalties may 
be endured, but wrong must not be done. (Cheers.) 
" I cannot obey, but I can suffer," was the exclamation 
of the author of Pilgrim's Progress, when imprisoned 
for disobedience to an earthly statute. Better suffer 
injustice than do it. Better be even the poor slave, 
returned to bondage, than the unhappy Commissioner. 
(Applause and sensation.) 

The whole dogma of passive ohedience must be re- 
jected ; — in whatever guise it may assume, and under 
whatever alias it may skulk ; whether in the tyrannical 
usurpations of king, parliament, or judicial tribunal; 
whether in the exploded theories of Sir Robert Filmcr, 
or the rampant assumptions of the partisans of the 
Fugitive Slave Bill. The rights of the -civil power 
are limited ; there are things beyond its province ; 
there are matters out of its control ; there are cases in 
which the faithful citizen may say — ay, 7}iust say — 
" I will not obey." No man now responds to the 
words of Shakespeare, " If a king bid a man be a 
villain, he is bound, by the indenture of his oath, to 
be one." Xor will any prudent reasoner, who duly 
considers the rights of conscience, claim for any cartlily 
magistrate or tribunal, howsoever styled, a power 
which, in this age of civilization and liberty, the 
loftiest monarch of a Christian throne, wearing on 



408 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

his brow " the round and top of sovereignty" dare not 
assert. 

On this two-fold conclusion I rest, and do not doubt 
the final result. The citizen, who has sworn to support 
the Constitution, is constrained to suj^port it simply as 
he understands it. The citizen, whose private life has 
kept him from assuming the obligations of the oath, 
may bravely set at naught the unjust mandate of a 
magistrate, and, in so doing, he will serve justice, 
though he may expose himself to stern penalties. 

Fellow Citizens of Massachusetts : — Our own local 
history is not without encouragement. In early colo- 
nial days, the law against witchcraft, now so abhorrent 
to reason and conscience, was regarded as constitutional 
and binding, precisely as the Fugitive Slave Bill, not 
less abhorrent to reason and conscience, has been re- 
garded as constitutional and binding. The Supreme 
Court of the Province, with able judges, whose names 
are entwined with our history, enforced this law at 
Salem, by the execution of fourteen persons as witches ; 
precisely as petty magistrates, acting under the sanction 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, and also 
of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, have enforced 
the Fugitive Act, by the reduction of two human 
beings to Slavery. The clergy of Massachusetts, par- 
ticularly near Boston, and also Harvard College, were 
for the law. " Witchcraft," shouted Cotton Mather from 
the pulpit, " is the most nefandous high treason '' — "■ a 
capital crime" — even as opposition to the Fugitive 
Act has been denounced as " treason." (Laughter.) 

But the law against witchcraft was not triumphant 
long. The General Court of the Province first became 
penitent, and asked pardon of God for " all the errors 



AT THE PHESENT CRISIS. 409 

of His servants and people in tlie late tragedy." Jury- 
men united in condemning and lamenting the delusion 
to which they had yielded under the decision of the 
judges, and acknowledged that they had brought the 
reproach of wrongful bloodshed on our native land. 
Sewall, one of the judges, whose name lives freshly in 
the liberty-loving character of his descendant, [Hon. 
S. E. Sewall,] (applause,) and who had presided at 
the trials, stood up in his place at church, before the 
congregation, and implored the prayers of the people 
*' that the errors he had committed might not be 
visited by the judgments of an avenging God on his 
country, his family, or himself." And now, in a 
manuscript diary of this departed judge, may be read, 
on the margin against the contemporary record of these 
trials, in his own handwriting, words of Latin interjec- 
tion and sorrow : Vce, vce, vce. Woe ! woe ! woe ! (Sen- 
sation.) 

The parallel between the law against witchcraft, and 
the Fugitive Act is not yet complete. It remains for 
our Legislature, the successor of that original General 
Court, to lead the penitential march. (Laughter.) In 
the slave cases there have been no jurymen to recant 
(laughter) ; and it is too much, perhaps, to expect any 
magistrate who has sanctioned the cruelty, to imitate 
the magnanimity of other days by public repentance. 
But it is not impossible that future generations may 
be permitted to read, in some newly exhumed diary or 
letter, by one of these unhappy functionaries, words 
of woe not unlike those which were wrung from the 
soul of Sewall. (Sensation.) 

And now, fellow-citizens, one word in conclusion ; 
35 



410 THE DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Be of good cheer. (" That's it.") I know well the 
difficulties and responsibilities of the contest ; but not 
on this account do I bate a jot of heart or hope. (Ap- 
plause.) At this time, in our country, there is little 
else to tempt into public life an honest man, who 
wishes, by something that he has done, to leave the 
world better than he found it. There is little else 
which can afford any of those satisfactions which an 
honest man can covet. Nor is there any cause which 
so surely promises final success. There is nothing 
good — not a breathing of the common wind — which 
is not on our side. Ours, too, are those great allies 
described by the poet — 

" exultations, agonies, 



And love, and man's unconquerable mind." 

And there are favoring circumstances peculiar to the 
present moment. By the passage of the Nebraska 
Bill, and the Boston kidnapping case, the tyranny of 
the Slave Power has become unmistakably manifest, 
while, at the same time, all compromises with Slavery 
are happily dissolved, so that Freedom now stands 
face to face with its foe. The pulpit, too, released 
from ill-omened silence, now thunders for Freedom, as 
in the olden time. (Cheers.) It belongs to Massa- 
chusetts — nurse of the men and principles which 
made the earliest Revolution — to vow herself anew 
to her ancient faith, as she lifts herself to the great 
struggle. Her place now, as of old, is in the van, at 
the head of the battle. (Sensation.) But to sustain 
this advanced position with proper inflexibility, three 
things are needed by our beloved Commonwealth, in 
all her departments of government — the same three 



AT THK PRESENT CRISIS. 411 

things, whicli once in Fancuil Hall, I ventured to say 
were needed by every representative of the North at 
Washington. The first is backbone (applause) ; the 
second is backbone (renewed applause) ; an(^ the 
third is BACKBOXE. (Long continued cheering, 
and three cheers for "backbone.") With these, 
Massachusetts will be respected, and felt as a positive 
force in the National Government (applause), while at 
home, on her own soil, free at last in reality as in 
name (applause), all her people, from the islands of 
Boston to Berkshire hills, and from the sands of Barn- 
stable to the northern line, will unite in the cry : 

'* No slave hunt in our borders — no pirate on our strand; 
No fetter on the Bay State; no slave upon her land." 



THE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT; 
ILLUSTRATED BY THE LIFE OF GRAN^^LLB 
SHARP. 

AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 
OF BOSTON, ON THE EVENING OF 15tH NOVEMBER, 1854. 



Mr. President, and Gentle jien of the Mercantile Library 
Association : 

I HATE been honored by an invitation to deliver an 
address, introductory to one of the annual courses of 
lectures, which your Association bountifully contributes 
to the pastime, instruction and elevation of our com- 
munity. You know, sir, something of the reluctance 
with which, embarrassed by other cares, I undertook 
this service, — yielding to a kindly and persistent pres- 
sure, w^hich only a nature sterner than mine could resist. 
And now I am here to perform what I promised. 

I am to address the Mercantile Library Association 
of Boston, numbering, according to your last report, 
two thousand and seventy-eight members, and possess- 
ing a library of more than fifteen thousand volumes. 
With so many members and so many books, yours is 
an institution of positive power. Two distinct features 
appear in its name. It is primarily an association of 
persons in mercantile pursuits ; and it is, next, an 
association for the improvement of its members, par- 

[412] 



POSITION AXI) DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 413 

ticularly through books. In either particular, it is 
entitled to regard. But it possesses yet another fea- 
ture, more interesting still, which does not appear in 
its name. It is an association of young men, with 
hearts yet hospitable to generous words, and with re- 
solves not yet vanquished by the trials and temptations 
of life. Especially does this last consideration fill me 
with a deep sense at once of the privilege and respon- 
sibility to which you have summoned me. I am aware 
that, according to usage, the whole circle of knowledge, 
thought and aspiration, is open to the speaker ; but as 
often as I have revolved the occasion in my mind — 
even as the Greek poet, who hoped to sing of Atreus, 
was brought back to the strain of love — I have been 
brought back to a consideration of the peculiar character 
of your association ; and I have found myself unwilling 
to touch any theme which was not addressed to them 
especially as merchants. 

I might fitly speak to you of books ; and here, while 
undertaking to consider the principles which should 
govern the student in his reading, it would be pleasant 
to dwell on the profitable delights, better than a 
" shower of cent, per cent. ; " on the society, better 
than fashion or dissipation ; and on that completeness 
of satisfaction, outvying the possessions of wealth 
and power, and making " my library dukedom large 
enough ; " all of which are found in books. But I 
leave this theme. I might also fitly speak to you of 
young men, their claims and duties. And here again, 
while enforcing the precious advantages of Occupation, 
it would bo pleasant to unfold and vindicate that rever- 
ence which antiquity wisely accorded to youth, as the 

season of promise and hope, pregnant with an unknown 
'> \* 



414 POSITION AND DUTIES 

future, and, therefore, to be watched with tenderness 
and care ; to show how in every young man the uncer- 
tain measure of yet undeveloped capacities gives scope 
to a magnificence of anticipation beyond any reality ; 
and to ask what must be done, that all this anticipa- 
tion may not wholly die while the young man lives. 
But there are other things which beckon me away. 
Not on books, not on youth shall I speak ; but on yet 
another topic, suggested directly by the name of your 
Association. 

With your kind permission, I shall speak to-night 
on what this age requires from the mercantile profes- 
sion, or rather, since nothing is justly required which 
is not due, what the mercantile profession owes to this 
age. I would show the principle by which w^e are to 
be guided in making the account current between the 
mercantile profession and Humanity, and, might I so 
aspire, hold up the Looking-glass of the Good Mer- 
chant. And, since example is better than precept, and 
deeds are more than words, I shall exhibit the career 
of a remarkable man, whose simple life, beginning as 
the apprentice to a linen draper, and never getting 
beyond a clerkship, shows Avhat may be accomplished 
by faithful, humble labors, and reveals precisely those 
qualities, Avhich, in this age, are needed to crown the 
character of a Good Merchant. 

*' Every man owes a debt to his profession," was a 
saying of Lord Bacon, repeated by his contemporary 
and rival Lord Coke. But this does not tell the whole 
truth. It restrains within the narrow circle of a pro- 
fession, obligations which are broad and universal as 



OP THE MERCHANT. 415 

humanity. Rather should it be said that every man 
owes a debt to mankind. In determining the debt of 
the merchant, we must first appreciate his actual posi- 
tion in the social system ; and here let us glance at 
history. 

At the dawn of modern times trade was unknown. 
There was nothing, then, like a policy of insurance, a 
bank, a bill of exchange or even a promissory note. 
The very term " chattels," so comprehensive in its pres- 
ent application, yet when considered in its derivation 
from the mediaeval Latin catalla, cattle, reveals the nar- 
row inventory of personal property in those days, when 
*' two hundred sheep " were paid by a pious Countess 
of Anjou for a coveted volume of homilies. The places 
of honor and power were then occupied by men who 
had distinguished themselves by the sword, and were 
known under the various names of knight, baron, count, 
or — highest of all — Duke, Dux, the leader in war. 

Under these influences the feudal system was organ- 
ized, with its hierarchy of ranks, in mutual relations 
of dependence and protection ; and society for a while 
rested in its shadow. The steel-clad chiefs, who en- 
joyed power, had a corresponding responsibility ; and 
the mingled gallantry and gentleness of chivalry often 
controlled the iron hand. It was the dukes who led 
the forces ; it was the counts or earls who placed 
themselves at the head of their respective counties ; it 
was the knights who went forth to do battle with 
danger, in whatever form, whether from robbers or 
wild beasts. It was the barons at llunnymede — there 
was no merchant there — who extorted from King 
John that Magna Charta which laid the corner-stone 
of English and American libortv. 



416 POSITION AND DUTIES 

Meanwhile trade made its humble beginnings. Brt 
for a long time the merchant was of a despised caste, 
only next above the slave who was sold as a chattel. 
If a Jew, he was often compelled, under direful tor- 
tures, to surrender his gains ; if a foreigner, he earned 
toleration by inordinate contributions to the public 
revenue ; if a native, he was treated as a caitiff too 
mean for society, and only good enough to be taxed. 
In the time of Chaucer he had so far come up, that he 
was admitted to the promiscuous company, ranging 
from the knight to the miller, who undertook the merry 
pilgrimage from the Tabard Inn to Canterbury ; but 

the gentle poet satirically exposes his selfish talk — 

« 
" His resons spake he full solempnly, 
Souning alway the encrease of his winning ; 
He wold the see were kept for any thing 
Betwixen Middleburgh and Orewell." 

The man of trade had been so low that it took him 
long to rise. A London merchant, the famous Gresham, 
in the time of Elizabeth, founded the Royal Exchange, 
and a college also ; but trade continued still a butt for 
jest and jibe. At a later day an English statute gave 
new security to the merchant's accounts ; but the con- 
temporaneous dramatists exhibited him to the derision 
of the theatre, and even the almanacs exposed his 
ignorant superstitions by chronicling the days supposed 
to be favorable or unfavorable to trade. But in the 
grand mutations of society, the merchant throve. His 
wealth increased ; his influence extended, and he gradu- 
ally drew into his company decayed or poverty-stricken 
members of feudal families, till at last in France, (I do 
not forget the exceptional condition of Italy,) at the 
close of the seventeenth century, an edict was put forth. 



OF THE MERCHANT. 417 

which John Locke has preserved in the journal of his 
travels, "■ that those who merchandise, but do not use 
the yard, shall not lose their gentility ; " (admirable 
discrimination !) and in England, at the close of the 
eighteenth century, his former degradation and growing 
importance were attested in the saying of Dr. Johnson, 
that " the English merchant is a newly-discovered 
species of gentleman." But this high arbiter, — bend- 
ing under feudal traditions, — would not even then 
concede to him any merit ; proclaiming that " there 
were no qualities in trade that should entitle a man to 
superiority ; " " that we cannot think a fellow, by sit- 
ting all day at a desk, entitled to get above us," and, 
to the supposition by his faithful Boswell, that a mer- 
chant might be a man of enlarged mind, the determined 
moralist replied, " Why, sir, we may suppose any 
fictitious character ; but there is nothing in trade con- 
nected with an enlarged mind." 

In America feudalism never prevailed, and our Rev- 
olution severed the only cord by which we were con- 
nected with this ancient system. It was fit that the 
Congress, which performed this memorable act, should 
have for its President a merchant. It was fit that, in 
promulgating the Declaration of Independence, by 
which, in the face of kings, princes and nobles, the 
new era was inaugurated, the education of the count- 
ing-house should flaunt conspicuously in the broad 
and clerkly signatui-e of John Hancock. Our fathers 
" builded wiser than they knew ; " and these things are 
typical of the social change then taking place. And 
by yet another act, fresh in your recollection, and of 
peculiar interest to this assembly, has our country 
borne the same tcstimonv. A distinguished merchant 



418 POSITION AND DUTIES 

of Boston, who has ascended through all the gradations 
of trade, honored always for his private virtues as well 
as public abilities — I may mention the name of Abbott 
Lawrence — has been sent to the Court of St. James 
as the ambassador of our Republic, and with that proud 
commission, higher than any patent of nobility, has 
taken precedence of the nobles of that ancient realm. In 
this circumstance I see the triumph of personal merit, 
but still more, the consummation of a new epoch. 

Yes, sir ! say what you will, this is the day of the 
merchant. As in the early ages, war was the great 
concern of society, and the very pivot of power, so is 
trade now; and as the feudal chiefs were the "nota- 
bles " placed at the very top of their time, so are the 
merchants now. All things attest the change. War, 
which was once the universal business, is now confined 
to a few : once a daily terror, it is now the accident 
of an age. Not for adventures of the sword, but 
for trade do men descend upon the sea in ships, and 
traverse broad continents on iron pathways. Not for 
protection against violence, but for trade, do men come 
together in cities and rear the marvellous superstruc- 
ture of social order. If they go abroad, or if they stay 
at home, it is trade that controls them, without distinc- 
tion of persons. Here, at least, in our country every 
man is a trader. The physician trades his benevolent 
care ; the lawyer trades his ingenious tongue ; the 
clergyman trades his prayers. And trade summons 
from the quarry the choicest marble and granite to 
build its capacious homes, and now, in our own city, 
displays warehouses which outdo the baronial castle, 
and sales-rooms which outdo the ducal palace. With 
these magnificent appliances the relations of depend- 



OF THE MERCHANT. 419 

ence and protoction, which marked the early feudalism, 
are reproduced in the more comprehensive feudalism 
of trade. Even now there are European bankers who 
vie in power with the dukes and princes of other days, 
and there are traffickers everywhere, whose title comes 
from the ledger and not the sword, fit successors 
to counts, barons and knights. As the feudal chief 
allocated to himself and his followers the soil, which 
was the prize of his strong arm, so now the merchant, 
with a grasp more subtle and reaching, allocates to 
himself and followers, ranging through multitudinous 
degrees of dependence, all the spoils of every land, 
triumphantly won by trade. I would not press this 
parallel too far, but, at this moment, especially in our 
country, the merchant, more than any other character, 
stands in the very boots of the feudal chief. Of ail 
pursuits or relations, his is now the most extensive 
and formidable, making all others its tributaries, and 
bending at times even the lawyer and the clergyman to 
be its dependent stipendiaries. 

Such in our social system is the merchant ; and on 
this precise and incontrovertible statement I found his 
duties. Wealth, power, and influence are not for self- 
indulgence merely, and just according to their extent 
are the obligations to others which they impose. If, 
by the rule of increase, to him that hath is given, so in 
the same degree new duties are superadded : nor can 
any man escape from their behests. If the merchant 
be in reality our feudal lord, he must render feudal ser- 
vice ; if he be our modern knight, he must do knightly 
deeds ; if be be the baron of our day, let him maintain 
baronial charity to the humble — ay, sir, and baronial 
courage against tyrannical wrong, in whatsoever form 



420 POSITION AND DUTIES ^ 

it may assume. But even if I err in attributing to him 
this peculiar position, I do not err in attributing to him 
these duties ; for his influence is surely great, and he 
is at least a man, bound by his simple manhood to 
regard nothing human as foreign to his heart. 

The special perils which aroused the age of chivalry 
have passed away. Monsters, in the form of dragons, 
griffins, or unicorns, no longer ravage the land. Giants 
have disappeared from the scene. Robbers have been 
dislodged from castle and forest. Godeschal the Iron- 
hearted, and Robin Hood, are each without descend- 
ants. In the new forms which society has assumed, 
touched by the potent wand of trade, there is no place 
for any of these. But wrong and outrage are not yet 
extinct. Cast out of one body, they enter straightway 
another, whence too they must be cast out. Alas ! in 
our day, amidst all this teeming civilization, with the 
horn of Abundance at our gates, with the purse of 
Fortunatus in our hands, with professions of Christianity 
on our lips, and with the merchant installed in the 
high places of chivalry, there are sorrows not less poig- 
nant than those which once enkindled knightly sym- 
pathy ; and there is wrong, which vies in loathsomeness 
with early monsters, in power with early giants, and 
in its existing immunity with the robbers once shel- 
tered by castle and forest — stalking through your 
streets in the abused garb of law itself, and dwarfing 
by its hateful presence all the atrocities of another age. 
A wicked man is a deplorable sight ; but a wicked law 
is worse than any wicked man, even than the wretch 
who steals human beings from their home in Africa ; 
nor can its outrages be redressed by any incidental 
charities, perishing at night as the manna in the wilder- 



or THE MERCHANT. 421 

ness. Like a monster, it must be overpowered ; like 
a robber, it must be chained ; like a wild beast, it must 
be exterminated. 

To the merchant, then — especially to the young 
merchant — I appeal, by the position you have won 
and by the power which is yours ; go forth to redress 
these grievances, whatever they may be, whether in 
the sufferings of the solitary soul or audaciously organ- 
ized in the likeness of law. And now, that I may not 
seem to hold up any impracticable standard, that the 
path of duty may not appear difficult, and that no 
young man need hesitate, even though he find himself 
alone, and opposed by numbers, let me present briefly, 
as becomes the hour, the example and special achieve- 
ment of Gkaxyille Shabp, the humble Englishman, 
who, without wealth, fame, or power, did not hesitate 
to set himself against the merchants of the time, against 
the traditions of the English bar, against the authority 
of learned lawyers, and against the power of magis- 
trates, until, by persevering effort, he compelled the 
highest tribunal of the land to declare the grand con- 
stitutional truth, that the slave who sets his foot on 
British ground becomes that instant free. His character 
of pure and courageous principle may be little regarded 
yet ; but as time advances, it will become a guiding 
luminary. There are stars aloft, centres of other 
systems, in such depths of firmament that only after 
the lapse of ages does their light reach this small ball 
which we call earth. 

!Mr. President, do not start, I shall not tread on 
forbidden ground. To the occasion and to your asso- 
ciation I shall be loyal ; but let me be loyal also to 
myself. Thank God, the great volume of the past is 
36 



422 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

always open, with, its lessons of warning and example. 
Nor will the assembly, which now does me the honor 
to listen to me, be willing to imitate the pious pirates 
of the Carribean Seas, who daily recited the ten com- 
mandments, always omitting the injunction, " Thou 
shalt not steal." I know well the sensitiveness of 
certain consciences. This is natural. It is according 
to the decrees of Providence that, whosoever has been 
engaged in meanness or wickedness, should be pur- 
sued wherever he moves by reproving voices — speak- 
ing to him from the solitudes of nature, from the dark- 
ness of night, from the hum of the street, and from 
every book that he reads, like fiery tongues at Pente- 
cost, until at last the confession of Satan himself can 
alone express his wretchedness : 

' Me miserable ! which way shall I fly ? 
Which way I fly is hell, — myself am hell ! ' 

Granyille Sharp was born at Durham in 1735. 
His family was of great respectability and of ancient 
lineage. His grandfather was Archbishop of York, 
and the confidential chaplain and counsellor of the re- 
nowned Chancellor, Heneage Finch, Lord Nottingham. 
His less conspicuous father was an arch-deacon and 
prebendary of the church, who, out of his ecclesiastical 
emoluments, knew how to dispense charity, while he 
reared his numerous children to different pursuits. 
Of these Granville was the youngest son, and, though 
his elder brothers were educated for professional life, 
he was destined to trade, a portion being set apart by 
his father to serve as his apprentice fee in London. 
With this view his back was turned upon the learned 
languages, and his instruction was confined chiefly to 



GRANVILLE SIIAlir. 423 

writing and arithmetic ; but at this time he read and 
enjoyed all the plays of Shakespeare, in an ajjple-tree 
of his father's orchard. When fifteen years old, he 
■vvas bound as apprentice to a Quaker linen-draper in 
London, and at this tender age left his father's house. 
Of his apprenticeship he has given an interesting 
glimpse : — 

" After I had served about three years of my apprenticeship, 
my master, the Quaker, died, and I was turned over to a Pres- 
byterian, or rather, as he was more properly called, an Inde- 
pendent. I afterward lived some time with an Irish Papist, and 
also with another person, who, I believe, had no religion at all." 

Although always a devoted member of the Church 
of England, these extraordinary experiences in early 
life placed him above the prejudices of sect, and in- 
spired a rule of conduct, worthy of perpetual memory, 
which he presents as follows : 

" It taught me to make a proper distinction between the 
OPINIONS of men and their persons. The former I can freely 
condemn without presuming to judge the individuals themselves. 
Thus freedom of argument is preserved, as well as Christian 
charity, leaving personal judgment to Him to whom alone it 
belongs." 

Only two years before the enrolment of Granville 
Sharp among London apprentices — that class so 
famous in local history — another person, kindred in 
benevolence and now in fame, Howard, the philan- 
thropist, on whose career Burke has cast the illu- 
mination of his genius, finished service in the same 
place as apprentice to a wholesale grocer. I do not 
know that these two congenial natures — or yet 
another contemporary of lowly fortunes, John Raikes, 
the inventor of Sunday schools — ever encountered 
in the world. But they are joined in examjile, and 



424 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

the life of an apprentice, in all its humilities, seems 
radiant with their presence, as with heavenly light. 
Perhaps, among the apprentices of Boston, there may 
be yet a Granville Sharp, or John Howard. And just 
in proportion as the moral nature asserts its rightful 
supremacy here, will such a character be hailed as of 
higher worth than the products of all the mills 
of Lowell, backed by all the dividends and discounts 
of State street. 

In 1758, shortly after the completion of his appren- 
ticeship and entrance upon business. Sharp lost both 
his parents, and very soon thereafter abandoning trade, 
obtained a subordinate appointment as a supernumerary 
clerk in the Ordnance Office, where, after six years' 
service, he became simply a ' clerk in ordinary.' 
Meanwhile, conscientiously fulfilling this life of rou- 
tine and labor, not unlike the toils of Charles Lamb 
at the India House, he commenced, in moments saved 
from business and snatched from sleep, a series of 
studies, which, though undervalued by his modesty, 
the scholar may envy. That he might better enjoy 
and vindicate that Book, which he reverentially ac- 
cepted as the rule of life, he first studied Greek and 
then Hebrew, obtaining such command of both lan- 
guages, as to employ them skilfully in the field of 
theological controversy. Music and French he studied 
also, and our own English tongue too, on the pronun- 
ciation of which he wrote an excellent essay. 

These quiet pursuits were interrupted by an incident 
which belongs to the romance of truth. An unhappy 
African, by the name of Jonathan Strong, had been 
brought from Barbadoes to London, as a slave, where, 
after brutal outrages, at which the soul shudders, 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 425 

inflicted by the person who called himself master — 
I regret to add lawyer also — he was turned adrift 
on the unpitying stones of that great metropolis, lame, 
blind and faint, with ague and with fever, and with- 
out a home. In this plight, while staggering along 
in quest of medical care, he was met by the good 
Samaritan, Granville Sharp, who, touched by his 
misfortunes, bound up his wounds, gave him chari- 
table assistance, placed him in a hospital, and watched 
him through a protracted illness, until at last health 
and strength again returned, and he was able to com- 
mence service as a freeman in a respectable home. In 
this condition, after the lapse "of two years, he was at 
last recognized in the street by his old master, who at 
once determined to entrap him, and to hold him as a 
slave. By a deceitful message the victim was tempted 
to a public house, where he was shocked to encounter 
his cruel claimaiit, who, without delay, seized and 
committed him to prison. Here, again, was the good 
Samaritan, Granville Sharp, who lost no time in en- 
joining upon the keeper of the prison, at his peril, 
not to deliver the negro to any person whatever, and 
then promptly invoked the intervention of the Mayor 
of London. At the hearing before this magistrate, it 
appeared that the claimant had already undertaken, by 
a formal bill of sale, to convey the alleged slave to 
another person, who, by an agent, was in attendance 
to take him on board a ship bound for Jamaica. As 
soon as the case had been stated, the Mayor gave 
judgment in words worthy of imitation : " The lad," 
said this righteous judge, "has not stolen anything, 
and is not guilty of any offence, and is, therefore, at 
liberty to go away." The agent of the claimant, not 
30* 



426 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

disheartened, seized him by the arm and still claimed 
him as " property," Yes ! even as property ! Sharp, 
in his ignorance of legal proceedings, was for a moment 
perplexed, when the friendly voice of the coroner, who 
chanced to be near, whispered, " Charge him ; " on 
which hint our philanthropist, turning at once to the 
brazen-faced claimant, said, with justifiable anger of 
manner : " Sir, I charge you in the name of the King, 
with an assault upon the person of Jonathan Strong, 
and all these are my witnesses ! " when, to avoid 
immediate commitment, and the yawning cells of the 
jail, he let go his piratical slave-hunting grasp, " and 
all bowed to the Lord Mayor and came away, Jona- 
than following Granville Sharp, and no one daring to 
touch him." 

But the end was not yet. By this accidental and 
disinterested act of humanity. Sharp was exposed at 
the same time to personal insult and to a suit at law. 
The discomfited claimant — the same lawyer who had 
originally abandoned the slave in the streets of Lon- 
don — called on him " to demand gentlemanlike satis- 
faction ; " to which the philanthropist replied, that, 
as "the lawyer had studied law so many years, he 
shovild want no satisfaction that the law could give 
him." And he nobly redeemed his word ; for he 
applied himself at once to his defence against the legal 
process instituted by the claimant for an alleged ab- 
straction of projjerty. Here begins his greatness. 

It is in collision with difiiculty that the sparks of 
genuine character appear. This simple-hearted man, 
now vindictively pursued, laid his case before an 
eminent solicitor, who, after ample consideration 
with learned counsel, — among whom was the cele- 



GllAXTILLE SHARP. 427 

bratcd Sir James Eyre, — did not hesitate to assure 
him that, under the British Constitution, he could not 
be defended against the action. An opinion given in 
1729, jointly by the Attorney General and Solicitor 
General of the time, York and Talbot, — two great 
names in the English law, and each afterwards Lord 
Chancellor, — was adduced, declaring, under their 
respective signatures, that " a slave, by coming from the 
"West Indies to Great Britain or Ireland, either with 
or without his master, doth not become free," and 
*' that the master may legally compel him to return 
again to the plantations ; " and Lord Mansfield, the 
Chief Justice, was reported as strenuously concurring 
in this opinion, to the odious extent of delivering up 
fugitive slaves to their claimants. With these author- 
ities against him, and forsaken by his professional 
defenders. Sharp was not disheartened ; but, though, 
according to his own striking language, " totally un- 
acquainted either with the practice of the law, or the 
foundations of it, having never in his life opened a law 
book except the Bible," he was inspired to depend on 
himself. An unconquerable mil, and those instincts 
Avhich are often profounder in their teaching than any 
learning, were now his counsellors. For nearly two 
years, during which the suit was still pending, he gave 
himself to an intense study of the British Constitution 
in all its bearings upon human liberty. During these 
researches, he was confirmed in his original preposes- 
sions on the question, and aroused to an undpng 
hostility against Slavery, which he plainly saw to be 
without any sanction in the Constitution. " Neither 
the word slavks," he exclaimed, " or anything that 



428 POSITIOX AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

can justify the enslaving of others^ can he found there, 
God he j^raised ! " * And I, too, say God be praised ! 

The result of these studies was embodied in a tract, 
" On the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of toler- 
ating Slavery, or even of admitting the least Claim to 
Private Property in the Persons of Men in England." 
This was submitted to his counsel, one of whom was 
the famous commentator, Sir William Blackstone, and, 
by means of numerous copies in manuscript, circulated 
among gentlemen of the bar, until the lawyers on the 
other side w^ere actually intimidated, and the Slave- 
hunter, failing to bring forward his action, was mulcted 
in treble costs ; and thus ended that persecution of our 
2)hilanthropist. This important tract was printed in 1769. 

Thus far it was an individual case only which had 
engaged his care. Another soon followed, where, 
through his chivalrous humanity, the intolerable wrongs 
of a woman kidnapped in London and transported as 
a slave to Barbadoes, were redressed, — so far as an 
earthly decree could go. Learning the infinite Avoes 
of Slavery, he was now aroused to broader efforts. 
Shocked by an advertisement in a London newspaper, 
-r- such as often appeared in those days — of "■ a black 
girl to be sold, of excellent temper and willing dispo- 
sition," — he at once protested to the Chancellor, Lord 
Camden, against such things as "a notorious breach 
of the laws of nature, humanity and equity, and also 
the established law, custom and constitution of Eng- 
land ; " and in the same year, loth May, 1709, ho 
solemnly appealed by letter to the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury against the slave trade, and thus by many 

* Hoare's Life of Shai-p, vol. i. p. 58, cap. I. 



GRANTILLE SHARP. 429 

years heralded t"hc labors of Clarkson and "Wilbcrforce. 
*■'• I am myself convinced," he said, " that nothing can 
thrive which is in any way concerned in that unjust 
trade. I have known several instances, which are strong 
proofs to me of the judgments of God, even in this 
world, against such a destructive and iniquitous traffic." 
In these things he showed not only his love of justice, 
but his personal independence. " Although I am a 
placeman,'' he wrote on another occasion, " and indeed 
of a very inferior rank, yet I look on myself to be per- 
fectly independent, because I have never yet been 
afraid to do and avow whatever I thought just and 
light, without the consideration of consequences to 
myself ; for, indeed, I think it unworthy of a 7nan to 
be afraid of the world ; and it is a point with me never 
to conceal my sentiments on any subject whatever, not 
even from my superiors in office, when there is a proh- 
ahility of ansioering any good purpose hy it.^^ 

Still again his protecting presence v^'as enlisted to 
save a fellow-man from bondage ; and here it is neces- 
sary to note the new form of outrage. A poor African, 
Thomas Lewis, who had once been a slave, was residing 
quietly at Chelsea, in the neighborhood of London, 
when he was suddenly seized by his former master, 
who, with the aid of two ruffians hired for the fiend- 
ish purpose, dragged him on his back into the water, 
and thence into a boat lying in the Thames, in which, 
with his legs tied, and his mouth gagged by a stick, 
he was rowed down to a ship bound for Jamaica, under 
a commander previously engaged in tlie conspiracy, to 
be sold fur a slave on his arrival in that island. But 
this diabolical act, though warily contrived, did nut 
escape notice. The cries of the victim, on his way to 



430 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEKCHANT. 

the boat, reached the servants of a neighboring man 
sion, who witnessed the deadly struggle, but did not 
venture a rescue. Their mistress, a retired ^\ddow, 
mother of the eminent naturalist and traveller. Sir 
Joseph Banks, on learning what had passed, instantly 
put forth her womanly exertions. Without the hesita- 
tion of her sex, she hurried to Granville Sharp, who 
was now known for his knightly zeal to succor the 
distressed, laid before him the terrible story, and in- 
sisted upon vindicating the freedom of the stranger at 
her own expense. All honor to this woman I A 
simple warrant, first obtained by Sharp, was scouted 
by the captain, whose victim, bathed in tears, was 
already chained to the mast. The great writ of habeas 
corpus was next invoked ; and the ship, which had 
contumaciously proceeded on its way, was boarded in 
the Downs, happily within British jurisdiction, by a 
faithful officer, who, in the name of the King of Eng- 
land, unbound the chains of the African, and took him 
back to freedom. 

A complaint was now presented against the kid- 
nappers, who were at once indicted by the grand jury. 
The cause was removed to the King's Bench, and on 
the 20th February, 1771, brought into court before 
Lord Mansfield. The defence was, that the victim 
was their slave, and, therefore, property to be rightfully 
seized. And here the question was distinctly pre- 
sented, whether any such property was recognized by 
the British Constitution. The transcendent magistrate, 
who presided on the occasion, saw the magnitude of 
the issue, and sought to avoid its formal determina- 
tion, by presenting the subordinate point, whether the 
claimant, supposing such property recognized, was able 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 431 

to prove the man to be his. The kidnappers were 
found " guilty ; " but judgment against them was 
waived on the recommendation of Lord Mansfiekl, 
who, be it observed, shrank, at every stage, from any 
act by which Slavery in England should be annulled, 
and who avowed on this occasion " his hope that the 
question never would be finally discussed," JSharp 
was justly indignant at this craven conduct, which, 
with all gentleness of manner, but with perfect firm- 
ness, he did not hesitate to arraign as an " open con- 
tempt " of the true principles of the Constitution. 

Alas ! it is the natural influence of Slavery to make 
men hard. Gorgon-like, it turns to stone all who look 
upon its face except to slay it. Among the juridical 
magistrates of the time, Lord Mansfield was not alone. 
His companion in contemporary fame, Blackstone, shared 
the petrifaction. An early edition of his incomparable 
Commentaries had openly declared that a slave on com- 
ing to England became at once a freeman ; but, in a sub- 
sequent edition, after the question had been practically 
presented by Granville Sharp, the text was pusillani- 
mously altered to an abandonment of this great constitu- 
tional principle ; and our intrepid philanthropist hung 
his head with shame and anxiety while the counsel for 
the Slave-hunters triumphantly invoked this tergiver- 
sation as a new authority against Freedom. 

But the day was at hand when the great philanthro- 
pist was to be vindicated, even by the lips of the great 
magistrate. The Slavery Question could not be sup- 
pressed. The Chief Justice of England could not do 
it. Drive out nature ^\'ith a pitchfork, and still she 
will at once return. Only a few months elapsed, when 
a memorable case arose, which presented the question 



432 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

distinctly for judgment. A negro, James Somerset, — 
whose name, as the starting-point of an immortal prin- 
ciple, will help to keep alive the appellation of the 
ducal house, to v/hich it originally belonged, — was 
detained in irons on board a ship lying in the Thames, 
and bound for Jamaica. On application to Lord Mans- 
field, in his behalf, 3d December, 1771, supported by 
affidavits, a wTit of habeas corpus was directed to the 
captain of the shij), commanding him to return the 
body of Somerset into court, with the cause of his 
detention. In course of time, though somewhat tardily, 
the body was produced, and, for cause of detention, it 
was assigned, that he was the property of Charles 
Stewart, Esq., of Virginia, who had held him in Vir- 
ginia as a slave ; that, when brought as such to Lon- 
don, he ran away from the service of his master, but 
was recovered, and finally delivered on board the ship 
to be carried to Jamaica, there to be sold as the slave 
and property of the Virginia gentleman. As no facts 
were in issue here, the whole cause hinged on the 
constitutionality of Slavery in England ; and the great 
question which the Chief Justice had sought to avoid, 
and on which the Commentator had changed sides, was 
once again to be heard. 

In order to give solemnity to the proceedings, in 
some degree corresponding to their importance, the 
cause was brought by Lord Mansfield before the King's 
Bench, where it was continued from time to time, ac- 
cording to the convenience of counsel and of the court, 
running even through months, and occupying diff'erent 
days in January, February and May, down to the 22 d 
June, 1772, when judgment was finally delivered. 
During all this period, Somerset, having recognized 



GRANVILLE SHAHP. 433 

with, sureties for his appearance in court, was left at 
large. To Granville Sharp he had repaired at once, 
and by him was kindly welcomed, and effectually aided. 
Under his advice, counsel learned in the law were re- 
tained, and by this humble clerk, they were instructed 
in the grounds of defence. At his expense, too, out of 
his small means, the proceedings were maintained. 
** Money," he nobly said, "has no value but when it 
is well spent ; and I am thoroughly convinced, that no 
part of my little pittance can ever be better bestowed 
than in an honest endeavor to crush a growing oppres- 
sion, which is not only shocking to humanity, but in 
time must prove even dangerous to the community." 
On the other side, the costs were defrayed by a sub- 
scription among the merchants ! Hear this, merchants 
of Boston, justly jealous of the good name of your 
calling, and hang your heads with shame ! 

To the glory of the English bar, the eminent counsel 
for the slave declined all fees for their valuable and 
protracted services ; and here let me pause for one 
moment to pay them an unaffected tribute. They 
were five in number : Mr. Sergeant Davy, who opened 
the cause with the proposition " that no man at this 
day 15 or can he a. slave in England ; " Mr. Sergeant 
Glynn ; Mr. Mansfield, afterward Chief Justice of the 
Common Pleas ; Mr. Hargrave and Mr. Allcyne, each 
of whom was patiently heard by the court at length. 
The argument of Mr. Hargrave, who early volunteered 
his great learning in the case, is one of the masterpieces 
of the bar. This was his first appearance in court ; but 
it is well that liberty on that day had such support. 
For all these gallant lawyers, champions of the right, 
there is honor ever increasing, which the soul spon- 
37 



434 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEIICHANT. 

taneously offers, while it turns in sorrow from the 
counsel, only two in number, who allowed themselves 
to be enlisted on the side of Slavery. I know well that 
in Westminster Hall there are professional usages, 
which happily do not prevail in our country — where 
every such service depends purely on contract — by 
which a barrister thinks himself contrained to assume 
any cause which is properly presented to him. If this 
service depended on contract there, as with us, the 
sarcasm of Ben Jonson would be strictly applicable ; 

♦' This fellow 

For six sols more would plead against his Maker." 

The Fox, Act ith. 

But I undertake to affirm, that no usage, professional 
or social, can give any apology for joining the pack of 
the Slave-hunter. Mr. Dunning, one of the persons 
in this predicament, shewed that he acted against his 
better nature. The first words in his argument Avere : 
"It is incumbent on me to justify the detainer of the 
negro." Pray why incumbent on him ? He was then 
careful to show that he did not maintain that there was 
an absolute property in him ; and he proceeded to say, 
among other things, that it was his misfortune to ad- 
dress an audience, the greater part of which, he feared, 
was prejudiced the other way ; that for himself, he 
would not be understood to intimate a wish in favor 
of Slavery ; but that he was bound in duty to mention 
those arguments most useful to the claimant, so far as 
consistent with the truth, and he concluded with this 
conscience-stricken appeal : " I hope, therefore, I shall 
not suffer in the opinion of those whose honest passions 
are fired at the name of Slavery — I hope I have not 
transgressed my duty to humanity." Clearly the lawyer 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 435 

had trangressed his duty to Humanity. No man can 
rightfully enforce any principle which violates human 
nature ; nor can any subtilty of dialectics, any extent 
of erudition, or any grandeur of intellect, sustain him. 
Notwithstanding the character for liberal principles 
which John Dunning acquired, and which breathes 
in his sensitive excuses — notwithstanding his double 
fame at once in Westminster Hall and Saint Stephen's 
Chapel — notwithstanding the peerage which he vainly 
won, "no son of his succeeding," — this odious service 
rendered to a Slave-hunter, calling himself a Virginia 
gentleman, cries in judgment against him, and will 
continue to cry, as time advances. (Do not start, Mr. 
President, I am alluding to occurrences in another 
hemisphere, and another century !) As well undertake 
a Slave-hunt in the deserts of Africa as in the streets 
of London. As well pursue the fugitive with the 
hired whip of the overseer as with the hired argument 
of the lawyer. As well chase him with the bay of the 
blood-hound, as with the tongue of the advocate. It 
is the lawyer's clear duty to uphold human rights, 
whether in the loftiest or the lowliest, and when he 
undertakes to uphold a wrong so outrageous as Slavery, 
his proper function is so far reversed, that he can be 
aptly described only in the phrase of the Roman Church, 
L'Avocato del Diavolo, The Devil's Advocate. 

Passing from the counsel to the court, we find at 
once occasion for gratitude and sorrow. The three 
judges, Ashton, Willcs and Ashurst, who sat at the 
side of Lord Mansfield, were silent throughout the 
whole proceedings, overawed, perhaps, by his com- 
manding authority, so that he alone seems to be present. 
Of large intellect and extensive studies, running into 



436 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

all regions of learning ; witli a silver-tongued voice 
and an amenity of manner which gave a constant charm 
to his presence ; with unsurpassed professional and 
political experience combined ; the early companion of 
Pope and the early competitor of Pitt ; having already 
once refused the post of Prime Minister and three times 
refused the post of Chancellor; he stood forth — at 
the period when the poor slave was brought before 
him — as an acknowledged light of jurisprudence, and, 
take him for all in all, the most finished magistrate 
England had then produced. But his character had 
one fatal defect, which is too common on the bench. 
He lacked moral firmness, which, happily, was not 
lacking in Granville Sharp. Still more, he w^as not 
naturally on the side of Liberty, as becomes a great 
judge, but always by blood and instinct on the side of 
prerogative and power — an offence for which he was 
arraigned by his contemporary, Junius, and for which 
posterity will hold him to strict account. But his 
luminous mind, prompt to perceive the force of prin- 
ciples, could not resist the array of arguments now 
marshalled for Freedom. He saw clearly that a system 
like Slavery could not find a home under the British 
Constitution, loliich nowhere mentions the name of slave. 
And yet he shrank from the conclusion. More than 
once he coquetted with the merchants, who had the 
case so much at heart, and twice he ignobly suggested 
that the claimant might avoid the decision of the great 
question, fraught with Freedom or Slavery to multi- 
tudes, simply by manumitting the individual slave. 
And when at last the case could not be arrested by 
any device, or be longer postponed — when judgment 
was inevitable — he came to the work, not warmly or 



GRANVILLE SHAUr. 437 

generously, but in trembling obedience to the Truth 
which awaited to be declared. • 

On other occasions of a purely commercial character, 
his judgments were more learned and elaborate, and 
they were reported with more completeness and care ; 
but no judgment of equal significance ever fell from 
the great Oracle. From various sources I have sought 
its precise import.* It is remarkable for several rules 
which it clearly enunciates, and which, though often 
assaulted, still stand as reason and as law. Of these 
the first was expressed in these simple words : "If the 
parties will have judgment, ^a^ justitia, mat coduni ; 
let justice be done, whatever be the consequences." 
The Latin phrase, which here plays such a prominent 
part, though of classical stamp, cannot be traced to any 
classical origin, and it has even been asserted, that it 
was freshly coined by Lord Mansfield on this occasion, 
worthy of such commanding truth in such commanding 
phrase. But it is of older date and from another mint, 
though it is not too much to say, that it took its cur- 
rency and authority from him. Coming from such a 
conservative magistrate, it is of peculiar importance. 

* It is strange that there should be no single satisfactory report 
of this memorable judgment. That usually quoted from Howell's 
State Trials, vol. xx. pp. 81, 82, was copied from Lofft, a reporter 
generally avoided as an authority. There is another report in 
Hoar's Life of Sharp, pp. 89, 90 ; also another in Campbell's 
Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. ii. p. 410 ; and still another, and, 
in some respects, the best, in the Appendix to a tract published 
by Sharp in 1770, entitled " The Just Limitation of Slavery in 
the Laws of Gtxl, compared with the unbounde<l claims of the 
African Traders and British American Slaveholders." This 
judgment is also considered and quoted in several other contem- 
porary tracts. 



438 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

With little expansion it says openly : To every man his 
natural rights ; justice to all, without distinction of 
persons, without abridgment and without compromise. 
Let j ustice be done though it drags down the pillars of 
the sky. Thus spoke the Chief Justice of England. • 

And still another rule, hardly less important or less 
commanding, was clearly proclaimed in these penetrat- 
ing words : " I care not for the supposed dicta of judges, 
however eminent, if iAe?/ he contrary to all principle ;^^ 
or, in other language, it is in vain that you invoke 
great names in the law — even the names of Hard- 
wicke and Talbot, and my own learned associate Black- 
stone — in behalf of an institution which defies reason 
and outrages justice. Mortal precedents are powerless 
against immortal principles. Thus again spoke the 
Chief Justice of England. 

Braced by these rules, the next stages were logically 
easy. And here he uttered words which are like a 
buttress to Freedom. He declared that " tracing 
Slavery to natural principles, it can never be sup- 
ported ; " that is to say, Slavery is a violation of the 
great law of nature, established by God himself, and 
coextensive, in space and time, with the Universe. 
Again he proclaimed, " Slavery cannot stand on any 
reason, moral or political, but only by virtue oi positive 
law,'^ and he clinched his conclusion by the unquestion- 
able statement, that " in a matter so odious the evi- 
dence and authority of this law must be taken strictly ; " 
in other words, a wrong like Slavery, which finds no 
support in natural law or in reason, can be maintained 
— if at all — only by some dread mandate, from some 
sovereign authority, irresistibly clear and incapable of 
a double sense, which declares in precise and unequivo- 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 489 

cal terms, that men guilty of no crime may be held as 
slaves, and be submitted to the bargains of the market- 
place, the hammer of the auctioneer, and the hunt of 
the blood-hound. Clearly no such mandate could be 
shown in England. And after asserting the obvious 
truth, that rights cannot depend on any discrimination 
of color, and thus discarding the profane assumptions 
of race, while he quoted apt Roman authority : — 

** Quamvis ille niger, quamvis tu candidus esses," 

the Chief Justice concluded, " and, therefore, let the 
negro be discharged." Such was this immortal judg- 
ment. I catch its last words, already resounding 
through the ages, with the voice of deliverance to an 
enslaved people. 

From Westminster Hall, where he had so long been 
held in painful suspense, the happy freedman, with 
the glad tidings of his deliverance, now hurried to 
his guardian protector, Granville Sharp, Avho, though 
organizing and sustaining these proceedings, had been 
restrained by unobtrusive modesty from all appearance 
of attendance in court, that he might in no wise irritate 
the judge, unfortunately prepossessed against his en- 
deavor. And thus closed the most remarkable consti- 
tutional battle in English history, fought by a simple 
clerk, once apprentice to a linen-draper, against the 
merchants of London, backed by the authority of great 
names in law, and by the most exalted magistrate of 
the age. Even like the stripling David, he had gone 
forth to the contest, with only a sling and a few 
smooth stones from the brook ; and Goliath fell pros- 
trate at his feet. Not merely an individual slave was 
emancipated, but upwards of fifteen thousand human 



440 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

beings — five times as many as were held in Slavery 
throughout New England at the adoption of the Fed- 
eral Constitution — were discharged from bonds ; a 
slave hunt was made impossible in the streets of 
London ; and a great principle was set up which will 
stand forever as a Landmark of Freedom. 

This triumph, which, at the time, was hailed by the 
friends of human happiness with exultation and de- 
light, has been commemorated by poetry and eloquence. 
It prompted Cowper in his Task, to these touching 
verses : 

*' Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs 
Receive our air, that moment they are free. 
They touch our country and their shackles fall. 
That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud 
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, 
And let it circulate through every vein 
Of all your Empire, that where Britain's power 
Is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too ! " 

It inspired Curran to a burst of eloquence which can 
never be forgotten : 

" I speak in the spirit of British law, which makes liberty 
commensurate with and inseparable fi-om British soil ; which 
proclaims even to the stranger and the isojoui-ner, the moment 
he sets his foot upon British earth, that the ground on which he 
treads is holy and consecrated by the genius of Universal Eman- 
cipation. No matter in what language his doom may have been 
pronounced ; no matter what complexion, incompatible with 
Freedom, an Indian or African sun may have burnt upon him; 
no matter in what disastrous battle his liberty may have been 
cloven down ; nor with what solemnities he may have been de- 
voted upon the altar of Slavery; the moment he touches the 
sacred soil of Britain, the altar and the god sink together in the 
dust; his soul walks abroad in her own majesty; and he stands 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 411 

redeemed, regenerated and disentliralled by the ii'resistible genius 
of Universal Emancipation." 

It was this triumph which lifted Brougham, in our 
own day, to one of those vivid utterances by which 
truth is flashed upon the most unwilling souls : 

" Tell me not of rights — talk not of the property of the plant- 
er in his slaves. I deny the right — I acknowledge not the 
property. The principles, the feelings of our common nature, 
rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to the under- 
standing or to the heart, the sentence is the same that rejects it. 
In vain you tell me of laws that sanction such a claim ! There 
is a law above all the enactments of human codes — the same 
throughout the world, the same in all times; it is the law written 
by the finger of God on the heart of man ; and by that law, un- 
changeable and eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe 
rapine and abhor blood, they will reject with indignation, the 
wild and guilty phantasy that man can hold property in man." 

Granville Sharp did not now rest from his labors. 
The Humanities are not solitary. Where one is found, 
there will others be also. The advocate of the slave 
in London was naturally the advocate of liberty for 
all everywhere. In this spirit he signalized himself 
against that scandal of the English law, the hateful 
system of impressment, while he encountered no less a 
person than Dr. Johnson, whom he did not hesitate to 
charge " with plausible sophistry and important self- 
sufficiency, as if he supposed that the mere sound of 
words was capable of altering the nature of things ; '* 
also, against the claims of England in the controversy 
with her American colonies, zealously maintaining our 
cause in a publication, of which it is said seven thou- 
sand copies were printed in Boston ; also in establishing 
a colony of liberated slaves at Sierra Leone, on the 



442 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

coast of Africa, the predecessor of our more successful 
Liberia ; and finally, as a leader, not only against the 
Slave-trade, but also against Slavery in the colonies, 
so that he was reverentially hailed as " Father of the 
cause in England," and was placed at the head of 
the illustrious Committee by which it was conducted, 
though his rare modesty prevented him from actually 
taking the chair to which he was unanimously elected. 
But no modesty could check his valiant soul in conflict 
with wrong. At once, after the decree wrung from 
Lord Mansfield, he addressed Lord North, the Prime 
Minister, warning him in the most earnest manner to 
abolish immediately both the Slave-trade and Slavery 
itself in all the British dominions, as utterly irrecon- 
cilable with the principles of the British Constitution 
and the established religion of the land, and solemnly 
declaring that it were better for the nation, that its 
American possessions had never existed, or even that 
that they were sunk in the sea, than that Great 
Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of such 
abominable wickedness. With similar boldness, in an 
elaborate work, he arraigned the doctrine of passive 
obedience advanced now in favor of judicial tribunals, 
as once in favor of kings, and he openly affirmed as 
unquestionable truth, that every public ordinance con- 
trary to reason, justice, natural equity, or the written 
word of God, must be promptly rejected. Other 
things, too, I might mention ; but I am admonished 
that I must draw to a close. Pardon me if I touch 
yet one other shining point in his career worthy of 
perpetual example. 

The news of the battle of Bunker Hill, which reached 
London at the end of July, 1775, found him at his 



GRAXVILLE SHARP. 443 

desk, still a clerk in the Ordnance Office, and obliged 
by his position, to participate in the military prepara- 
tions now required. But he was unwilling to be 
concerned, even thus distantly, in what he regarded 
as " that unnatural business ; " and though a close 
attendance on his office for eighteen years, to the 
neglect of all other means of subsistence, had made it 
important to him as a livelihood, yet he resolved to 
sacrifice it. Out of regard to his great worth and the 
respect he had won, he was at first indulged with a 
leave of absence, but when hostilities in the Colonies 
had advanced beyond any prospect of speedy accom- 
modation, then he vacated his office. This man of 
charity, who had lived for others, was now left without 
support. But he was happy in the testimony he had 
borne to his principles ; nor was he alone. Lord 
Effingham, and also the eldest son of Lord Chatham, 
threw up their commissions in the army rather than 
serve on the side of injustice. And they were all 
clearly right. It is vain to suppose that any human 
ordinance, whether from King, Parliament, or Judicial 
Tribunal, can vary our moral responsibilities, or release 
us from obedience to God. And since no man can 
stand between us and God, it belongs to each con- 
science for itself to determine its final obligations, and, 
where pressed to an unrighteous act, — as if to slay, 
or what is equally bad, to enslave a fellow-man, 
charged with no crime, — then at every peril to dis- 
obey it. The lofty example of Granville Sharp on 
this occasion is not the least among the large legacies 
of wisdom and fidelity which he has left to man- 
kind. 

All these are especially commended to us, as citizens 



444 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

of the United States, "by tlie early and constant interest 
wliich lie manifested in our country. By pen and 
personal intercession he vindicated our political rights, 
and when independence was secured, his sympathies 
did not abate, as witness his correspondence with 
Adams, Jay, Franklin, and America's earliest Abo- 
litionist, Anthony Benezet. His name became an 
authority here — at the South as well as the North — 
and the colleges, including Brown University, Harvard 
University, and William and Mary's, of slaveholding 
Virginia, vied with each other in conferring upon 
him their highest academic honors. But the growing 
numbers of the Episcopal Church had occasion for 
special gratitude, only to be repaid by a loyal regard 
for his character and life. On the separation from 
the mother country they were left without any 
Episcopal head. To repair this deprivation, Granville 
Sharp, in published writings extensively circulated, 
proposed the election of bishops by the churches, and 
their subsequent consecration in England, as congenial 
with the usages of early Christians, and, after much 
correspondence and many impediments, enjoyed the 
satisfaction of presenting two bishops elect from 
America, — one of whom was the exemplary Bishop 
White, of Philadelphia, — to the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury, by whom the Christian rite of laying on of 
hands was performed ; and thus was the English Epis- 
copacy communicated to this continent. I know not 
that the powerful religious denomination, which, in its 
infancy, he befriended, has ever sympathized with the 
great effort by which his name is exalted ; but they 
should at least repel the weak imputation, — so often 
levelled against all who are steadfast against Slavery, 
— that their benefactor was " a man of one idea." 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 445 

Mr. President — I have striven to keep within the 
open field of history and philanthropy, on neutral 
ground ; but you would not forgive me if, on this 
occasion, I forbore to adduce the most interesting tes- 
timony of Granville Sharp, touching the much debated 
clause in our Federal Constitution, which has been 
stretched to the surrender of fugitive slaves. Anterior- 
to the Constitution, even during colonial days, he 
wrote that any law which orders the arrest or ren- 
dition of fugitive slaves, or which, in any way, tends 
to deprive them of legal protection, is to be deemed 
" a corruption, null and void in itself; " and at a later 
period, in an elaborate communication to the Abolition 
Society of Maryland — (mark, if you please, of slave- 
holding Maryland) — which was printed and circu- 
lated by this society, as " the production of a great 
and respectable name," calculated to relieve persons 
" embarrassed by a conflict between their principles 
and the obligations imposed by unwise and, perhaps, 
unconstitutional laws," he exposed the utter " ille- 
gality " of Slavery and especially of " taking up slaves 
that had escaped from their masters." But, in a re- 
markable letter to Franklin, dated 10th January, 1788, 
— a short time after the Constitution had left the 
hands of the Convention, and some months before its 
final adoption by the people, — and which has never 
before been mentioned even in the thorough discus- 
sion of this question, the undaunted champion, who 
had not shrunk from confiict with the Chief Justice of 
England, openly arraigned the Federal Constitution. 
Here are his words : — 

*' Having been always zealous for the honor of free govern- 
ments, I am the more sincerely grieved to see the new Federal 
38 



446 POSITION AND DUTIES OP THE MERCHANT. 

Constitution stained by the insertion of two most exceptionable 
clauses ; the one in direct opposition to a most humane article, 
ordained by the first American Congress to be perpetually ob- 
served [refei-ring to the sufferance of the slave trade till 1808] : 
and the other, in equal opposition to an express command of the 
Almighty, not to deliver up the servant that is escaped from his 
master, &c. Both clauses, however, (the 9th section of the 1st 
.article and the latter part of the 2d section of the 3d article,) 
are so clearly null and void by their iniquity, that it would be 
even a CBmE to regard them as law." * 

It does not appear that Franklin ever answered this 
letter, in the short term of life which remained to him. 
But in justice to his great name, I desire to express my 
conviction here — of course without argument — that 
this patriot philosopher never attributed to the clause, 

— which simply provides for the surrender of fugitives 
" from service or labor" without the mention of slaves y 

— any such meaning as it has since been made to 
assume. And Granville Sharp himself, in putting 
upon it the interpretation he did, forgot the judgment 
which he had extorted from Lord Mansfield, affirming 
that any law out of which Slavery is derived must be 
construed strictly; and, stranger still, he forgot his 
own unanswerable argument, that the word slaves 
is nowhere to he found in the British Constitution. 
The question under the fugitive clause of our Consti- 
tution is identical with that happily settled in Eng- 
land. 

In works and contemplations like these was the life 
of our philanthropist prolonged to a generous old age, 
cheered by the esteem of the good, informed by study, 

*Hoare's Life of Sharp, Part ii. cap. 9. 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 447 

and elevated by an enthusiastic faitli, which always 
saw the world as the footstool of God ; and when, at 
last, in 1813, bending under the burden of seventy- 
seven winters, he gently sank away, it was felt that a 
man had died in whom was the greatness of goodness. 
Among the mourners at his grave stood William Wil- 
berforce ; and over the earthly remains of this child of 
lowly beginnings were now dropped the tears of a 
royal duke. The portals of that great temple of 
honor, where are treasured England's glories, swung 
open at the name of England's earliest Abolitionist. 
A simple tablet, from the chisel of Chantry, represent- 
ing an African slave on his knees in supplication, and 
also the lion and the lamb lying down together, with a 
suitable inscription, was placed in the Poet's corner of 
Westminster Abbey, in close companionship with 
those stones which bear the names of Chaucer, Spen- 
ser, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Goldsmith, Gray. 
As the Muses themselves did not disdain to watch 
over the grave of one who had done well on earth, so 
do the poets of England now keep watch over the 
monument of Granville Sharp. Nor is his place in 
that goodly company without even poetical title. The 
poet is simply a creator ; and he who was inspired to 
create freemen out of slaves was a poet of the loftiest 
style. But not in the sacred Abbey only, was our 
philanthropist commemorated. The city of London, 
the centre of those Slave-hunting merchants, over 
whom his great triumph was won, now gratefully 
claimed a part of his glory. The marble bust of Eng- 
land's earliest Abolitionist was installed at Guildhall, 
the home of metropolitan justice, pomp and hospi- 
tality, in the precise spot where once had stood the 



448 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT. 

bust of Nelson, England's greatest Admiral, and be- 
neath it was carved a simple tribute of more perennial 
worth than all the trophies of Trafalgar : " Granville 
Sharp, to whom England owes the glorious verdict of 
her highest court of law, that the slave who sets his 
foot on British ground, becomes that instant free." 

Gentlemen of the Mercantile Library Association, — 
such was Granville Sharp ; and such honors England 
to her hero paid. And now, if it be asked, why, in 
enforcing the duties of the Good Merchant, at this 
day, I have selected his name, the answer is prompt. 
It is in him that the merchant, successor to the chival- 
rous knight, who aims to fulfil his whole duties, may 
find a truer prototype than in any stunted though suc- 
cessful votary of trade, while the humble circumstances 
of his life seem to make him an easy exam23le. In 
imitating him, commerce would thrive none the less ; 
but goodness more. Business would not be checked ; 
but it would cease to be pursued as the " one idea " 
of life. Wealth would still abound ; but there would 
be also that solid virtue, never to be moved from truth, 
which you will admit, even without the admonition of 
Plato, is better than all the cunning of Dtedalus, or 
all the treasures of Tantalus. The hardness of heart 
engendered by the accursed greed for gain, and by the 
madness of worldly ambition, would be overcome ; the 
perverted practice, that Policy is the hcst Honesty^ 
would be reversed ; and Merchants ivoidd he recalled, 
gently hut irrcslstihhj^ to the great tkactical duties 
of this age, and thus win the palm of true honesty, 
which trade alone can never bestow. 



GRANVILLE SHARP. 449 



Who is the Honest Man ? 



He who doth still and strongly good pursue, 
To God, his neighbor, and himself, most true." 

Herbert. 

Young Merchants of Boston ! I have spoken 
to you frankly and faithfully, trusting that you would 
frankly and faithfully hearken to me. And now, in 
the benison once bestowed uj)on the youthful Knight, 
I take my leave : " Go forth, be brave, loyal and suc- 
cessful." 



38* 



THE DEMANDS OF FREEDOM — REPEAL OF THE 
FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 23d FEBRUARY, 
1855, AGAINST MR. TOUCEY's BILL, AND FOR THE REPEAL 
OF THE FUGITIYE SLAYE BILL. 



On 23d February, 1855, on motion of Mr. Toucey, of Connec- 
ticut, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of a " Bill to 
protect officers and other persons acting under the authority of 
the United States," by which it was provided that " suits com- 
menced or pending in any State Court against any officer of the 
United States or other person, for or on account of any act done 
under any law of the United States, or under color thereof, or 
for or on account of any right, authority, claim or title, set up 
by such officer or other person, under any law of the United 
States," should be removed for trial to the Circuit Court of the 
United States. It was seen at once that under these words an 
attempt was made to oust the State Courts of cases arising from 
trespasses and damages under the Fugitive Slave Bill ; and the 
Bill was pressed, as every thing for Slavery is always pressed, even 
on Friday, to the exclusion of the private claims to which that day 
is devoted under the rules of the Senate. A debate commenced, 
which was continued with much animation and feeling late into 
the night. 

Mr. Sumner seized this opportunity to press again his propo- 
sition to repeal the Fugitive Slave Bill. Just before the final 
question, he took the floor and spoke as follows : 

Mr. President : On a former occasion, as Slavery 
was about to clutch one of its triumphs, I rose to make 

[lou] 



DEMANDS OF FJREEDOM, ETC. 451 

my final opposition to it at midnight. It is now the 
same hour. Slavery is again pressing for its accus- 
tomed victory, which I again undertake for tlic mo- 
ment to arrest. It is hardly an accidental conjunction 
which thus constantly brings Slavery and midnight 
together. 

Since eleven o'clock this forenoon we have been in 
our seats, detained by the dominant majority, which, 
in subservience to Slavery, has refused to postpone 
this question or to adjourn. All other things are neg- 
lected. The various public interests which, at this 
late stage of the session, all press for attention, are 
put aside. According to the usages of the Senate, 
Friday is dedicated to the consideration of private 
claims. I have been accustomed to call it our day of 
justice, and I have been glad that, since these matters 
are referred to us, at least one day in the week has 
been thus set apart. But Slavery grasps this whole 
day, and changes it to a day of injustice. By the 
calendar, which I now hold in my hand, it appears 
that, at this moment, upwards of seventy-five private 
Bills, ^\ith which are associated the hopes and fears of 
widows and orphans, and of all who come to Congress 
for relief, are on your table neglected, ay, sir, sacri- 
ficed to the Bill which is now urged with so much 
pertinacity. Like Juggernaut, the Bill is driven over 
prostrate victims. And here is another sacrifice to 
Slavery. 

But I do not adequately expose the character of 
this Bill when I say it is a sacrifice to Slavery. It is 
a sacrifice to Slavery in its most odious form. Bad as 
Slavery may be, it is not so bad as hunting slaves. 
There is a seeming apology for Slavery at home, in 



452 DEMANDS OP FREEDOM — 

the States where it prevails, founded on the difficulties 
in the position of the master and the relations of per- 
sonal attachment which it sometimes excites ; but every 
apology fails when you seek again to enslave the fugi- 
tive whom the master could not detain by duress or 
by kindness ; and who, by courage and intelligence, 
under the guidance of the north star, has achieved a 
happy freedom. Sir, there is a wide difference be- 
tween the Slaveholder and the Slave-hunter. 

But the Bill before you is to aid in the chase of 
slaves. This is its object. This is its " being's end 
and aim." And this Bill, with this object, is pressed 
upon the Senate by the honorable Senator from Con- 
necticut [Mr. Toucey]. Not from slave soil, but from 
free soil, comes this effort. A Senator from the North 
— a Senator from New England — lends himself to 
the work, and with unnatural zeal helps to bind still 
stronger the fetters of the slave. 

Mr. Rusk (interrupting). Will the honorable Sen- 
ator allow me to interrupt him ? 

Mr. SuMNEK. Certainly. 

Mr. Rusk. I ask him to point out the words in 
tliis Bill where Slavery is mentioned. 

Mr. Sumner. I am glad the Senator from Texas 
has asked the question, for it brings attention at once 
to the true character of this Bill. I know its language 
well, and also its plausible title. On its face it pur- 
ports to be "a Bill to protect officers and other 
persons acting under the authority of the United 
States ; " and it proceeds to provide for the transfer 
of certain proceedings from the State courts to the 
C-irciut Courts of the United States. And yet, sir, by 
the admission of this whole debate, stretching from 



REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLATE BILL. 453 

noon to niidniglit, it is a Bill to bolster up the Fugitive 
Slave Act. 

Mr. Rusk. I have not listened to the debate, but 
I ask the Senator to point out in the Bill the place 
Avhcre Slavery is mentioned. If the Constitution and 
the laws appoint officers, and require them to discharge 
duties, will he abandon them to the mob ? 

Mr. Sumner. The Senator asks me to point out 
any place in this Bill where " Slavery " is mentioned. 
Why, sir, this is quite unnecessary. I might ask the 
Senator to point out any place in the Constitution of 
the United States where " Slavery " is mentioned, or 
where the word " slave " can be found, and he could 
not do it. 

Mr. E-usK. That is evading the question. I asked 
the Senator to point out in the Bill the clause where 
Slavery is mentioned. The Bill proposes to protect 
officers of the United States, whom you appoint, in 
discharging their duties. If they are to be left unpro- 
tected, repeal your law. 

Mr. SuMXER. I respond to the Senator, with all 
my heart, " repeal your law." Yes, sir, repeal the 
Fugitive Act which now requires the support of sup- 
plementary legislation. Remove this ground of offence. 
And before I sit down, I hope to make that very motion. 
Meanwhile, I evade no question propounded by the 
honorable Senator ; but I do not consider it necessary 
to show that " Slavery " is mentioned in the Bill. It 
may not be found there in name ; but Slavery is the 
very soul of the Bill. 

Mr. Rusk rose. 

Mr. SuMXER. The Senator has interrupted me 



454 DEMANDS OF FREEDOM 

several times ; he may do it more ; but, perhaps, he 
had better let me go on. 

Mr. Rusk. I understand the Senator ; but I make 
no boast of that sort. 

Mr. StTMNEK. Very well. At last I may be allowed 
to proceed. Of the Bill in question, I have little to 
say. Its technical character has been exposed by 
various Senators, and especially by my valued friend, 
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Chase], who opened this 
debate. Suffice it to say, that it is an intrusive and 
offensive encroachment on State Rights, calculated to 
subvert the power of the States in the protection of 
their citizens. This consideration alone would be 
ample to secure its rejection, if the attachment to State 
Rights, so often avowed by Senators, were not utterly 
lost in a stronger attachment to Slavery. But on these 
things, although well worthy of attention, I do not 
dwell. Objectionable as the Bill maybe on this ground, 
it becomes much more so when I regard it as an effort 
to bolster up the Fugitive Slave Act. 

Of this Act it is difficult to speak with moderation. 
Conceived in defiance of the Constitution, and in utter 
disregard of every sentiment of justice and humanity, 
it should be regarded as an outlaw. It may have the 
form of legislation, but it lacks every essential element 
of law. I have so often exposed its character on this 
floor, that I shall be brief now. 

There is an argument against it which has especial 
importance at this moment, when the Fugitive Act is 
made the occasion of a new assault on State Rights. 
This very Act is an assumption hy Congress of poiver 
not delegated to it under the Constitution, and an in- 
fraction of rights secured to the States. You will 



REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 455 

mark, if you please, the double aspect of this propo- 
sition, in asserting not only an assumption of power by 
Congress, but an infraction of State llights. And this 
proposition, I venture to say, defies answer or cavil. 
Show me, sir, if you can, the clause, sentence or word 
in the Constitution, which gives to Congress any power 
to legislate on this subject. I challenge honorable 
Senators to produce it, I fearlessly assert that it can- 
not be done. The obligations imposed by the " fugi- 
tive " clause, ivhatever they may he, rest upon the 
States, and not upon Congress. I do not now under- 
take to say what these obligations are ; but simply 
that, whether much or little, they rest upon the States. 
And this interpretation is sustained by the practice of 
Congress on another kindred question. The associate 
clause touching the "privileges of citizens " has never 
been made a source of power. It will be in the recol- 
lection of the Senate, that, during the last session, the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin], in answer to a 
question from me, openly admitted that there were laws 
of the Southern States, bearing hard upon colored citi- 
zens of the North, which were unconstitutional ; but 
when I pressed the honorable Senator with the question 
whether he would introduce or sustain a Bill to carry 
out the clause of the Constitution securing to these 
citizens their rights, he declined to answer. 

Mr. Benjamin. I think, Mr. President, I have a 
right to set the record straight upon that point. I 
rose in the Senate on the occasion referred to, as will 
be perfectly well recollected by every Senator present, 
and put a respectful question to the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts. Instead of a reply to my question, he put 
a question to me, which I answered, and then T put 



4o6 DEMANDS OF FREEDOM — 

my question. Instead of replying to that, he again 
put a question to me. Considering that as an absolute 
evasion of the question which I put to him, I declined 
having anything further to say in the discussion. 

Mr. Sumner. The Senator from Louisiana will 
pardon me if I suggest that there is an incontrovertible 
fact which shows that the evasion was on his part. 
The record testifies not only that he did not reply, but 
that I was cut off from replying by the efi'orts and votes 
of himself and friends. Let him consult the Congres- 
sional Gloie, and he will find it all there. I can con- 
ceive that it might be embarrassing to him to reply, for 
had he declined to sustain a Bill to carry out the clause 
in question, it would have been awkward, at least, to 
vindicate the Fugitive Slave Bill, which is derived from 
an identical clause in the Constitution. And yet there 
are Senators on this floor who, careless of the flagrant 
inconsistency, vindicate the exercise of power by Con- 
gress under the " fugitive " clause, w^hile their own 
States at home deny to Congress any power under the 
associate clause, on the " privileges of citizens," — 
assume to themselves a complete right to determine 
the extent of its obligations, — and ruthlessly sell into 
Slavery colored citizens of the North. 

Mr. Butler (interrupting). Does the Senator 
allude to my State ? 

Mr. Busk. No ; to mine. 

Mr. Butler. If he means South Carolina, I will 
reply to him. 

Mr. Sumner. I do allude to South Carolina, and 
also to other Southern States ; but especially to South 
Carolina. But let me say, that if I allude to these 
States, it is not to bring up and array the hardships 



EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 457 

of individual instances, but simply to show the position 
occupied by them on a constitutional question, iden- 
tical with that involved in the Fugitive Act. And 
now, at the risk of repetition, if I can have your atten- 
tion for a brief moment, without interruption, I will 
endeavor to state anew this argument. 

The rules of interpretation, applicable to the clause 
of the Constitution securing to " the citizens of each 
State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several States," are equally applicable to its associate 
clause, forming a part of the same section, in the same 
article, and providing that " persons held to service or 
labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 
into another, shall be delivered up, on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
Of this there can be no doubt. 

If one of these clauses is regarded as a compact 
between the States, to be carried out by them respec- 
tively, according to their interpretation of its obliga- 
tions, without any intervention of Congress, then the 
other must be so regarded ; nor can any legislative 
power be asserted by Congress under one clause, which 
is denied under the other. This proposition cannot 
be questioned. Now mark the consequences. 

Congress, in abstaining from all exercise of power 
under the first clause, when required thereto, in order 
to protect the liberty of colored citizens, while -it has 
assumed power under the second clause, in order to 
obtain the surrender of fugitive slaves, has shown an 
inconsistency, which becomes more monstrous when it 
is considered that, in the one case, the general and 
commanding interests of Liberty have been neglected, 
while in the other, the peculiar and subordinate inter- 
39 



458 DEMANDS OF FREEDOM — 

ests of Slavery have been carefully secured ; and such 
an exercise of power is an alarming evidence of that 
influence of Slavery in the National Government which 
has increased, is increasing, and ought to be over- 
thrown. 

Looking more precisely at these two clauses, we 
shall arrive at the true conclusion. According to the 
express words of the Constitution, in the tenth amend- 
ment, *' the powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo- 
ple ; " and since no powers are delegated to the United 
States, in the clause relating to " the privileges and 
immunities of citizens," or in the associate clause of 
the same section, relating to the surrender of " persons 
held to service or labor," therefore, all legislation by 
Congress, under either clause, must be an assumption 
of undelegated powers, and an infraction of rights 
secured to the States respectively, or to the people ; 
and such, I have already said, is the Fugitive Slave Act. 

I might go further, and, by the example of South 
Carolina, vindicate to Massachusetts, and every other 
State, the right to put such interpretation upon the 
" fugitive " clause as it shall think proper. The 
Legislature of South Carolina, in a series of resolu- 
tions, adopted in 1844, asserts the following propo- 
sition': 

*' Resolved, That free negroes and persons of color are not 
citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitu- 
tion, which confers upon the citizens of one State the privileges 
and immunities of the citizens of the several States." 

Here is a distinct assumption of a right to determine 
the persons to whom certain words of the Constitution 



EEPEAL OF THE EUGITIVE SLATE BILL. 459 

are applicable. Now, notMng can be clearer than 
this : If South Carolina may determine for itself 
whether the clause relating to " the privileges and 
immunities of citizens " be applicable to colored citi- 
zens of the several States, and may solemnly deny its 
applicability, then may Massachusetts, and every other 
State, determine for itself whether the other claase 
relating to the surrender of " persons held to service 
or labor," be really applicable to fugitive slaves, and 
may solemnly deny its applicability. 

Mr. President, I have said enough to show the 
usurpation by Congress under the " fugitive " clause 
of the Constitution, and to warn you against renewing 
this usurpation. But I have left untouched those 
other outrages, plentiful as words, which enter into 
the existing Fugitive Slave Act, among which are the 
denial of trial by jury ; the denial of the writ of habeas 
corpus ; the authorization of judgment on ex parte 
evidence, "v\dthout the sanction of cross-examination ; 
and the surrender of the great question of Human Free- 
dom to be determined by a mere Commissioner, who, 
according to the requirements of the Constitution, is 
grossly incompetent to any such service. I have also 
left untouched the hateful character of this enactment, 
as a barefaced subversion of every principle of human- 
ity and justice. And now, sir, we are asked to lend 
ourselves anew to this enormity, worthy only of indig- 
nant condemnation ; we are asked to impart new life 
to this pretended law, this false Act of Congress, this 
counterfeit enactment, this monstrosity of legislation, 
which draws no life from the Constitution, as it clearly 
draws no life from that Supreme Law which is the 
essential fountain of life to cvcrv human law. 



460 DEMANDS OF FKEEDOM 

Sir, tlie Bill before you may liave tlie sanction of 
Congress ; and in yet other ways you may seek to 
sustain the Fu2;itive Slave Act. But it will be in vain. 
You undertake what no legislation can accomplish. 
Courts, too, may come forward, and lend it their sanc- 
tion. All this, too, will be in vain. I respect the 
learning of judges ; I reverence the virtue, more than 
learning, by which their lives are often adorned. But 
nor learning, nor virtue, when, with mistaken force, 
bent to this purpose, can avail. I assert confidently, 
sir, and ask the Senate to note my assertion, that there 
is no court, howsoever endowed with judicial qualities, 
or surrounded by j^ublic confidence, which is strong 
enough to lift this Act into any permanent consideration 
or respect. It may seem, for a moment, to accomplish 
the feat. Its decision may be enforced — amidst tears 
and agonies. A fellow-man may be reduced anew to 
Slavery. But all will be in vain. This Act cannot be 
upheld. Anything so entirely vile, so absolutely atro- 
cious, would drag an angel down. Sir, it must drag 
down every court, which in an evil houi; ventures to 
sustain it. 

And yet, sir, in zeal to support this enormity. Sena- 
tors have not hesitated to avow a purpose to break 
down the recent legislation of States, calculated to 
shield the liberty of their citizens. " It is difficult," 
says Burke, " to frame an indictment against a whole 
people." But here in the Senate, where arc convened 
the jealous representatives of the States, we have heard 
whole States arraigned, as if already guilty of crime. 
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin], in plain- 
tive tones has set forth the ground of proceeding,, and 
more than one sovereign State has been summoned to 



EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 

judgment. It would be easy to show, by a critical 
inquiry, that this whole charge is without just founda- 
tion, and that all the legislation, so much condemned, 
is as clearly defensible under the Constitution, as it is 
meritorious in purpose. 

Sir, the only crime of these States is, that Liberty 
has been placed before Slavery. Follow the charge, 
point by point, and this will be apparent. In securing 
to every person claimed as a slave the protection of 
trial by jury and the habeas corpus, they simply provide 
safeguards, strictly \\'ithin the pro\-ince of every State, 
and rendered necessary by the usurpation of the Fugi- 
tive Act. In securing the aid of counsel to every per- 
son claimed as a slave, they but perform a kindly duty, 
which no phrase or word in the Constitution can be 
tortured to condemn. In ^■isiting with severe penalties 
every malicious effort to reduce a fellow-man to Slavery, 
they respond to the best feelings of the human heart. 
In prohibiting the use of the county jails and buildings 
as barracoons and slave-pens ; in prohibiting all public 
officers, holding the commission of the State, in any 
capacity — whether as Chief Justice or Justice of the 
Peace — whether as Governor or constable — from any 
service as a slave-hunter ; in prohibiting the volunteer 
militia of the State, in its organized form, from any 
such service, the States simply exercise a power under 
the Constitution — recognized by the Supreme Court 
of the United States, even while upholding Slavery in 
the fatal Prigg case — by positive riioHiBiTiox, to 
withdraw its own officers from this offensive business. 

For myself, let me say that I look with no pleasure 
on any possibility of conflict between the State and 
National jurisdictions ; but I trust that, if the interests 
3!)* 



462 DEMANDS OF FEEEDOil 

of Freedom so require, the States will not hesitate. 
From the beginning of this controversy, I have sought, 
as I still seek, to awaken another influence, which, 
without the possibility of conflict, will be mightier than 
any Act of Congress and the sword of the National 
Government. I mean an enlightened, generous, humane, 
Christian public opinion, which shall blast with con- 
tempt, indignation, and abhorrence, all who, in what- 
ever form, or under whatever name, undertake to be 
agents in enslaving a fellow-man. Sir, such an opinion 
you cannot bind or subdue. Against its subtle, perva- 
sive influence, your legislation and the decrees of courts 
will be powerless. Already in Massachusetts, I am 
proud to believe, it begins to prevail ; and the Fugitive 
Act will soon be there a dead letter. 

Mr. President, since things are so, it were well to 
remove this Act from our statute book, that it may no 
longer exist as an occasion of ill-will and a point of 
conflict. Let the North be relieved from this usurpa- 
tion, and the first step will be taken towards permanent 
harmony. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benja- 
min] has proclaimed anew to-night what he has before 
declared on this floor — " that Slavery is a subject with 
which the Federal Government has nothing to do." I 
thank him for teaching the Senate that word. True, 
most true, sir, ours is a Government of Freedom, which 
has nothing to do with Slavery. This is the doctrine 
which I have ever maintained, and which I am happy 
to find recognized in form, if not in reality, by the 
Senator from Louisiana. The Senator then proceeded 
to declare that " all that the South asks is to be let 
alone." This request is moderate. And I say, for the 
North, that all we ask is to be let alone. Yes, sir, let 



REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 463 

US alone. Do not involve us in the support of Slavery. 
Hug the viper to your bosoms, if you perversely will, 
■svithin your own States, until it stings you to a gener- 
ous remorse, but do not compel us to hug it too ; for 
this I assure you we will not do. 

But the Senator from Louisiana, with these profes- 
sions on his lips, proceeds to ask, doubtless with com- 
plete sincerity, but in strange forge tfulness of the 
history of our country : " Did we ever bring this sub- 
ject into Cqngress ? " Yes, sir, that was his inquiry, 
as if there had been any moment, from the earliest days 
of the Republic, when the supporters of Slavery had 
ceased to bring this subject into Congress. Almost 
from the beginning it has been there, through the 
exercise of usurped power, nowhere given under the 
Constitution, for I am glad to believe that the Consti- 
tution of my country contains no words out of which 
Slavery, or the power to support Slavery, can be de- 
rived ; and this conclusion, I doubt not, will yet be 
affirmed by the courts. And yet, the honorable Sena- 
tor asks : " Did we ever bring this subject into Con- 
gress r " The answer shall be plain and explicit. Sir, 
you brought Slavery into Congress, when, shortly after 
the adoption of the Constitution, you sanctioned it in 
the District of Columbia, within the National jurisdic- 
tion, and adopted that barbarous slave code, still extant 
on your statute-book, which the Senator from Connec- 
ticut [Mr. Gillette] has so eloquently exposed to-night. 
You brought Slavery into Congress, when at the same 
period you accepted the cession of territories from 
North Carolina and Georgia, now constituting States 
of the Union, with conditions in favor of Slavery, and 
thus be^^an to sanction Slavcrv in Territories within 



464 DEMANDS OF FREEDOM — 

the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. You brought 
Slavery into Congress, when, at diflferent times, you 
usurped a power, not given by the Constitution, over 
fugitive slaves, and by most offensive legislation thrust 
your arms into distant Northern homes. You brought 
Slavery into Congress, when, by express legislation, 
you regulated the coastwise slave trade, and thus 
threw the national shield over a traffic on the coast of 
the United States, which on the coast of Congo you 
justly brand as " piracy." You brought^ Slavery into 
Congress, when, from time to time, you sought to 
introduce new States with slaveholding Constitutions 
into the National Union. And, permit me to say, sir, 
you brought Slavery into Congress when you called 
upoij. it, as you have done even at this very session, to 
pay for slaves — and thus, in defiance of a cardinal 
principle of the Constitution, pressed the National Gov- 
ernment to recognize property in men. And yet the 
Senator from Louisiana, with strange simplicity, says 
that the South only asks to be let alone. Sir, the 
honorable Senator borrows the language of the North, 
which, at each of these usurpations, exclaims, " Let us 
alone." And let me say, frankly, that peace can never 
prevail until you do let us alone — until this subject 
of Slavery is banished from Congress by the triumph 
of Freedom — until Slavery is driven from its usurped 
foothold, and Freedom is made national instead of sec- 
tional — and until the National Government is brought 
back to the precise position it occupied on the day that 
Washington took his first oath as President of the 
United States, when there was no Fugitive Act, and 
the national flag, as it floated over the national territory, 
within the jurisdiction of Congress, nowhere covered a 
single slave. 



REPEAL OP THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 4G5 

And noAV, sir, as an effort in the true direction of 
tlie Constitution ; in the hope of beginning the divorce 
of the National Government from Slavery, and to re- 
move all occasion for the proposed measure under con- 
sideration, I shall close what I have to say with a motion 
to repeal the Fugitive Act. Twice already, since I 
have had the honor of a scat on this floor, I have 
pressed that question to a vote, and I mean to press it 
again to-night. After the protracted discussion, in- 
volving the character of this enactment, such a motion 
seems logically to belong to this occasion, and may fitly 
close its proceedings. 

At a former session, on introducing this proposition, 
I discussed it at length, in an argument, which I fear- 
lessly assert has never been answered, and now, in this 
debate, I have already touched upon various objections. 
There are yet other things which might be urged. I 
might exhibit the abuses which have occurred under 
the Fugitive Act ; the number of free persons it has 
doomed to Slavery ; the riots it has provoked ; the 
brutal conduct of its ofiicers ; the distress it has scat- 
tered ; the derangement of business it has caused, 
interfering even with the administration of justice, 
changing court-houses into barracks and barracoons, 
and filling the streets with armed men, amidst which 
law is silent. All these things I might expose. But 
in these hurried moments, I forbear. Suffice it to say, 
that the proposition to repeal the existing Fugitive 
Act stands on adamantine grounds, which no debate or 
opposition can shake. 

There are considerations belonging to the present 
period which give new strength to this proposition. 
Public Opinion, wliich, under a popular Govermcnt, 



466 DEMANDS OP TEEEDOM — 

makes and unmakes laws, and wliicli for a time, was 
passive and acquiescent, now lifts itself everywhere in 
the States where the act is sought to be enforced, and 
demands a change. Already three States, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut and Michigan, by formal resolutions pre- 
sented to the Senate, have concurred in this demand. 
The tribunals of law are joining at last with the people. 
The Superior Court of Cincinnati has denied the power 
of Congress over this subject. And now, almost while 
I speak, comes the solemn judgment of the Supreme 
Court of Wisconsin — a sovereign State of this Union 
made after elaborate argument, on successive occasions, 
before a single judge, and then before the whole bench, 
declaring this act to be a violation of the Constitution. 
In response to public opinion, broad and general, if not 
universal at the North, swelling alike from village and 
city, from the seaboard and lakes — judically attested, 
legislatively declared, and represented, also, by numer- 
ous petitions from good men without distinction of 
party — in response to this Public Opinion, as well as 
in obedience to my own fixed convictions, I deem it 
my duty not to lose this opportunity of pressing the 
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act once more upon the 
Senate. I move, sir, to strike out all after the enacting 
clause in the pending Bill, and insert instead thereof 
these words : 

" That the Act of Congress, approYed September 18, 1850, 
usually known as the ' Fugitive Slave Act,' be, and the same 
hereby is repealed." 

And on this motion I ask the yeas and nays. 

When INIr. Sumner took his seat, he was followed by Mr. Butler 
of South Carolina, who put a question to him, which was the 
occasion of the following dialogue. 



REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 467 

Mr. Sumner. The Senator asks me a question, and 
I answer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, 
would draw me in any way to sanction the return of 
any man to Slavery. But then I leave to others to 
speak for themselves. In this respect, I speak for 
myself. 

Mr. BuTLEE. I do not rise now at all to question 
the right of the gentleman from Massachusetts to hold 
his seat, under the obligation of the Constitution of 
the United States, with the opinions which he has ex- 
pressed ; but, if I understand him, he means that, 
whether this law, or that law, or any other law pre- 
vails, he disregards the obligations of the Constitution 
of the United States. 

Mr. Sumner. Not at all. That I never said. I 
recognize the obligations of the Constitution. 

Mr. Butler. But, sir, I will ask that gentleman 
one question : if it devolved upon him as a representa- 
tive of Massachusetts, all Federal laws being put out 
of the way, would he recommend any law for the de- 
livery of a Fugitive Slave under the Constitution of the 
United States ? 

Mr. Sum NEE. Never. 

Mr. BuTLEE. I knew that. Now, sir, I have got 
exactly what is the truth, and what I intend shall go 
forth to the Southern States. 



WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 28tH FEBRU- 
ARY, 1855, ON INTRODUCING A BILL TO SECURE WAGES TO 
SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. 



On the 28th February, 1855, Mr. Sumner, in pursuance of 
previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a Bill to 
secure wages to seamen in case of wreck, which was read twice 
by its title. 

Mr. Sumneh. — In introducing this Bill, I desire to 
make a brief explanation, which shall, at least, be a 
record of my views with regard to it. 

The Bill proposes an amelioration of the existing 
maritime law in respect to the wages of merchant 
seamen, which, so far as England is concerned, has 
already been made by Act of Parliament, and which, in 
our country, can only be accomplished by Act of Con- 
gress. 

By the existing maritime law, the seaman's wages 
depend upon a technical rule, which sometimes occa- 
sions hardships. Freight is compendiously said to be 
the mother of wages. In conformity with this fanciful 
idea, the wages are made to depend upon the earning 
of freight, unless the freight has been waived by agree- 

[468] 



"WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK. 469 

ment of tlio owner, or unless the voyage or freight be 
lost by the negligence, fraud, or misconduct of the 
owner or master, or be voluntarily abandoned. In 
case of ^vreck, the sailor has simply the chance of 
something, under the name of salvage, if the fragments 
of the ship saved happen to be of any value. But if 
the loss be total, then the sailor is without remedy. 
In the wrecks which occur with melancholy frequency 
on our churlish winter coast, this hardship adds even 
to the sorrows of disaster. Thus, as in a case which 
has actually arisen, a crew may commence service at 
Calcutta, may navigate the Indian Ocean, double the 
Cape of Good Hope, and bring their ship safely to the 
sight of land, and then, by the total loss of the ship 
and cargo, from the acknowledged perils of the sea, 
they may lose everything — even their right to wages 
— and may find themselves in a strange port, the prey 
of poverty. Nor can any merit, either throughout the 
protracted voyage, or in the hour of peril and ship- 
wreck, prevent the operation of this technical rule. 

There is also another circumstance which constrains 
the poor sailor. The owner may insure his ship, and 
also his freight, so that he may lose nothing but the 
premium he pays ; but the sailor is not allowed to pro- 
tect himself by insurance from the loss of his wages. 
His loss is, therefore, literally total. 

Now, this technical rule, which fastens the wages of 
the sailor to the fortunes of the vessel, or, in other 
words, makes the right dependent on the successful 
issue of the enterprise for which he is hired, must be 
considered an ofT-shoot of the mediaeval maritime law. 
It is not to be found in the Roman law, nor in the 
maritime legislation of the Eastern I^mpire, nor in that 
40 



470 WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WKECK. 

early compilation wMcli goes under the name of the 
Rhodian law. An eminent American judge, who has 
shed great light upon maritime jurisprudence — I refer 
to the learned and able Judge Ware, of the District 
Court of Maine — has said, in a judicial opinion, (see 
The Dawn, Daveis's Rep. 133,) that it owes its origin 
to the necessities and peculiar hazards which maritime 
commerce was compelled to encounter in the middle 
ages, when to the dangers of the winds and waves 
were added the more formidable perils of piracy and 
robbery. The rule having been thus established, has 
been preserved in the maritime jurisprudence of 
Europe, when the special exigencies in which it had 
its birth have ceased to exist. It has outlived the 
circumstances and excuses of its origin ; and now sur- 
vives to vex, oppress and disappoint the most needy, 
if not the most meritorious, of all who are concerned 
in the business of the seas. 

This hard rule survives with us, but not everywhere. 
The greatest commercial nation of the world has led 
the way in its abolition, and set an example to the 
United States. The Act of Parliament of 7th and 8th 
Victoria, chap. 112, sec. 17 (at the close) — called 
*' the Merchant Seamen's Act " — provides that 

" In all cases of wreck or loss of the ship, every surviving sear- 
man shall be entitled to his wages up to the period of the wreck 
or loss of the ship, whether such ship shall or shall not have 
earned freight ; provided the seaman shall produce a certificate 
from the master, or chief surviving officer of the ship, to the 
effect that he had exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, 
cargo and stores." 

But the sailor was not completely protected by this 
provision. Experience in England showed that the 



WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. 471 

cunning of agents was able to introduce into tlie ship- 
ping articles an agreement waiving the right to wages 
in case of loss, which the unthrifty sailor signed, igno- 
rant or careless of its import. To remedy this abuse, 
a further Act of Parliament, of 13th and 14th Victoria, 
chap. 98, sec. 53 — known as " the Mercantile Marine 
Act " — provides that 

*' No seaman shall, by reason of any agreement, forfeit his lien 
upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of 
his wages, to which he would otherwise have been entitled ; and 
every stipulation which is inconsistent with any provision of this 
Act, or of any other Act relating to the merchant service, and 
every stipulation by which any seaman consents to abandon his 
right to wages in the case of the loss of the ship, or to abandon 
any rights which he may have or obtain in the nature of sal- 
vage, shall be wholly inoperative.''^ 

The Bill which I now introduce is grounded on the 
provisions quoted from the two Acts of the British 
Parliament, and contains two principles. First, that 
seamen shall be paid their wages down to the time 
of the loss of the ship, in case they serve faithfully to 
the last ; and secondly, that they shall not be permitted 
to lose their wages through any agreement in the ship- 
ping articles. 

In some details I have departed from the British Act. 
It has not seemed to me advisable to make the wages 
dependent on " the certificate from the master or chief 
surviving officer of the ship," but to leave the question 
of serv-iccs open to proof in any way according to the 
received rules of evidence. I have, therefore, said that 
the wages shall be paid, " provided the seaman shall 
have exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, 
caro-o and stores." The reasons for this course are 
clear. Masters arc often part owners of American 



472 WAGES or seamen iisr case of weeck. 

ships, and thus have a personal interest adverse to the 
sailor. In a mood of selfishness or recklessness, they 
might refuse the certificate, even though well earned. 
Now, in constructing a protection to the sailor, it does 
not seem prudent to make his wages dependent upon 
any such quarter. Indeed, it is hardly just to take 
from him the right to establish his claim before the 
Admiralty Court, merely because an interested master 
refuses a certificate, when, perhaps, plenary proof 
might be furnished aliunde. Moreover, if the question 
were put in the control of the master, he might obtain 
thereby an improper influence over the minds of the 
crew, inducing them even to sacrifice truth in the 
event of any litigation between the owners and the 
underwriters. 

There can be no harm in leaving the question of 
fact to be proved by competent witnesses, like every 
other question of fact : and the seamen should be com- 
petent witnesses for each other. A sagacious court 
will know how to weigh their testimony, should it 
come in conflict with that of the officer. It seems 
proper that the master, too, though a party to the suit, 
— as in the case of a libel against him in personam, or 
in a suit at common law, — should be competent to 
testify to. the conduct of the libellant or plaintiflf; in 
other words, whether he had " exerted himself to the 
utmost," and I have introduced into the Bill a provi- 
sion accordingly. 

The British Act of 7th and 8th Victoria contains 
another defect. It limits the wages to " every sur- 
viving seaman." I can see no good reason why the 
wife and children of the sailor who has perished in the 
forlorn hope, perhaps, in the cause of all, should be 



WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK. 473 

deprived of the liumblc wages so dearly earned by 
their natural protectors, and thus be compelled to feel 
a new deprivation added to their bereavement. In the 
proposed Bill there is no such limitation. 

Beyond this brief statement I need not, on this occa- 
sion, add another word. Already Congress has shown 
a disposition to modify the rigorous maritime law in 
some of its provisions. In 1851, it made a change in 
the liability of ship owners as common carriers. But 
this very liability originated to a certain extent in the 
same principles from which is derived the liability of 
the seamen, if they fail to bring the ship and cargo to 
land. Ship owners and sailors were both treated as 
insurers. This was in the age of force, before the 
contract of insurance had spread its broad protection 
over commerce in every sea. The seaman should 
share this protection. He should be treated as not 
necessarily either a pirate or a coward. 

In the discussions of the Senate on the proposed 
change in the liability of ship-owners, it was effec- 
tively urged by my immediate predecessor, a distin- 
guished Senator from Massachusetts, the late Robert 
Rantoul, jr., that, if the United States failed to adopt 
that measure, the other maritime nations would have 
an advantage in the carrying trade. It is equally true 
that, unless we adopt the measure now proposed. 
Great Britain will have the advantage of us in the 
rate of seamen's wages ; for, under her existing laws, 
the sailor can afford to work cheaper on boai'd a Brit- 
ish ship than under the American flag. 

The measure now proposed is of direct importance 
to the two hundred thousand sailors constituting the 
mercantile marine of the United States. It also con- 
40* 



474 WAGES OP SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. 

cerns the three millions of men constituting the mer- 
cantile marine of the civilized world, any of whom, in 
the vicissitudes of the sea, may find themselves in 
American bottoms. I commend it as a measure of 
enlightened philanthropy, and also of simple justice. 

I ask that the Bill, having been read twice, be 
referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS NECESSITY, 

PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY, WITH GLIMPSES 

AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH. 



AX ADDRESS BEFORE TEE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, AT THE ME- 
TROPOLITAX THEATRE, 9 MAY, 1855. 



This address was the concluding lecture in an Anti-Slavery 
course in the city of New York. On the night of its delivery the 
Chair was occupied by the IIox. "William Jay, who introduced 
Mr. Sumner in the following words : 

" Ladies axd Gentlemen : I have been requested, on the part 
of the Society, to perforin the pleasing but unnecessary ofl&ce of 
introducing to you the honored and well-known advocate of Jus- 
tice, Humanity and Freedom, Charles Sumner. It is not for his 
learning and eloquence that I commend him to your respectful 
attention ; for learning, eloquence, and even theology itself, have 
been prostituted in the service of an institution well described by 
John Wesley as the sum of all villanies. I introduce him to you 
as a Northern Senator on whom nature has conferred the unusual 
gift of a backbone — a man who, standing erect on the floor of 
Congress, amid creeping things from the North, with Christian 
fidelity denounces the stupendous wickedness of the Fugitive law 
and Nebraska perfidy, and in the name of Liberty, Humanity 
and Religion, demands the repeal of those most atrocious enact- 
ments. May the words he is about to utter be impressed on 
your consciences, and influence your conduct." 

As soon as the applause had subsided, Mr. Sumner said : 

I am not insensible, sir, to this generous applause. Pardon 

[170] 



476 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTEBPKISE ; ITS 

me if I say, I cannot accept it for myself, but for the cause 
in whose behalf I am here to speak. Let me add that I am 
proud to be introduced on this occasion by one whose name, il- 
lustrious by a father's renown, is also illustrious by his own 
noble devotion to the Eights of Man. 

Mr. Sumner then proceeded to give the following addi-ess : 

History abounds in vicissitudes. From weakness 
and humility, men ascend to power and place. From 
defeat and disparagement, enterprises are lifted to 
triumph, and acceptance. The martyr of to-day is 
gratefully enshrined on the morrow. The stone that 
the builders rejected is made the head of the corner. 
Thus it always has been, and ever will be. 

Only twenty years ago, — in 1835, — the friends of 
the slave in our country were weak and humble, while 
their great Enterprise, just then showing itself, was 
trampled down and despised. The small companies, 
gathered together in the name of Freedom, were inter- 
rupted and often dispersed by riotous mobs. At Bos- 
ton, a feeble association of women, called the Female 
Anti- Slavery Society, convened in a small room of an 
upper story in an obscure building, was insulted and 
then driven out of doors by a frantic crowd, politely 
termed at the time, an assemblage of " gentlemen of 
property and standing," which, after various deeds of 
violence and vileness next directed itself upon William 
Lloyd Garrison, — known as the determined editor of 
the Liberator, and the originator of the Anti- Slavery 
Enterprise in our day, — then ruthlessly tearing him 
away, amidst savage threats and with a halter about 
his neck, dragged him through the streets, until, at 
last, guilty only, of loving liberty, if not wisely, too 
well, this unoffending citizen -was thrust into the com- 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 477 

mon jail for protection against an infuriated populace. 
Nor was Boston alone. Even villages, in remote rural 
solitude, belched forth in similar outrage ; while the 
large towns, like Providence, New Haven, Utica, Wor- 
cester, Alton, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia and 
New York, became so many fiery craters, overflowing 
with rage and madness. What lawless violence failed 
to accomplish was next urged through the forms of 
law. By solemn legislative acts, the Slave States 
called on the Free States " promptly and eflectually 
to suppress all associations within their respective 
limits purporting to be Abolition Societies;" and 
Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, basely 
hearkened to the base proposition. The press, too, 
with untold power, exerted itself in this behalf, while 
the pulpit, the politician and the merchant, conspired 
to stifle discussion, until the voice of Freedom was 
hushed to a whisper, " alas ! almost afraid to know 
itself." 

Since then — in the lapse of a few years only — a 
change has taken place. Instead of those small com- 
panies, counted by tens, we have now this mighty 
assembly, counted by thousands ; instead of an insig- 
nificant apartment, like that in Boston, the mere 
appendage of a printing-oflice, where, as in the man- 
ger itself, Truth was cradled, we have now this Metro- 
politan Hall, ample in proportions and central in 
place ; instead of a profane and clamorous mob, beat- 
ing at our gates, dispersing our assembly, and making 
one of our number the victim of its fury, we have now 
peace and harmony at unguarded doors, rufticd only 
by a generous competition to participate in this occa- 
sion ; while legislatures openly declare their sym- 



478 ANTI-SLAYEEY ENTEEPEISE ; ITS 

pathies ; villages, towns and cities vie in the new 
manifestation ; and the press itself, with increased 
power, heralds, applauds and extends the prevailing 
influence, which, overflowing from every fountain, and 
pouring through every channel, at last, by the awakened 
voice of pulpit, politician and merchant, swells into an 
irrepressible cry. 

Here is a great change, worthy of notice and memory, 
for it attests the first stage of victory. Slavery, in all 
its many-sided wrong, still continues ; but here in this 
metropolis, — ay, sir, and throughout the whole North, 
— freedom of discussion is at length secured. And 
this, I say, is the first stage of victory — herald of the 
transcendent Future ; 

*' Hark ! a glad voice the lonely desert cheers ; 
Prepare the way ! a God, a God appears ! 
A God ! a God ! the vocal hills reply, 
The rocks proclaim th' approaching Deity." * 

Nor is there anything peculiar in the trials to which 
our cause has been exposed. Thus in all ages has 
Truth been encountered. At first persecuted, gagged, 
silenced, crucified, she has cried out from the prison, 
from the torture, from the stake, from the cross, until 
at last her voice has been heard. And when that 
voice is really heard, whether in martyr cries, or in the 
earthquake tones of civil convulsion, or in the calmness 
of ordinary speech, such as I now employ, or in that 
still small utterance inaudible to the common ear, then 
is the beginning of victory ! " Give me where to stand, 
and I will move the world," said Archimedes ; and 
Truth asks no more than did the master of geometry. 

* Pope's Messiah. 



NECESSITY, PEACTICABILITY AXD DIGNITY. 479 

Viewed in this aspect, the present occasion rises 
ahove any ordinary course of lectures or scries of po- 
litical meetings. It is the inauguration of Freedom. 
From this time forward, her voice of warning and com- 
mand cannot be silenced. The sensitive sympathies 
of property may, in this commercial mart, once again 
recognize property in man ; the watchful press itself 
may falter or fail, but the vantage-ground of free dis- 
cussion now achieved cannot be lost. On this I take 
my stand, and, as from the Mount of Vision, behold 
the whole field of our great controversy spread before 
me. There is no point, topic, fact, matter, reason or 
argument, touching the question between Slavery and 
Freedom, which is not now open. Of all these I might, 
perhaps, aptly select some one and confine myself to 
its development. But I should not, in this way, best 
satisfy the seeming requirements of the occasion. Ac- 
cording to the invitation of your Committee, I was to 
make an address, introductory to the present course 
of lectures, but was prevented by ill-health. And 
now, at the close of the course, I am to say what I 
failed to say at its beginning. Not as caucus or as 
Congress can I address you ; nor am I moved to under- 
take a political harangue or constitutional argument. 
Out of the occasion let me speak, and, tliscarding any 
individual topic, aim to exhibit the entire field, in all 
its divisions and subdivisions, with all its metes and 
bounds. 

My subject will be The Necessity, Practica- 
bility AND Dignity of the Anti-Slavery Enter- 
prise, WITH glimpses at THE SPECIAL DUTIES OP 

THE North. By this enterprise I do not mean the 



480 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

efforts of any restricted circle, sect or party, but the 
cause of the slave, in all its forms and degrees, and 
under all its names, — whether inspired by the pulpit, 
the press, the economist or the politician, — whether in 
the early, persistent and comprehensive demands of 
Garrison, the gentler utterances of Channing, or the 
strictly constitutional endeavors of others now actually 
sharing the public councils of the country. To carry 
through this review, under its different heads, I shall 
not hesitate to meet the objections which have been 
urged against it, so far at least as I am aware of them. 
And now, as I speak to you seriously, I venture to ask 
your serious attention even to the end. Not easily can 
a public address reach that highest completeness which 
is found in mingling the useful and the agreeable ; but 
I desire to say, that, in this arrangement and co-ordi- 
nation of my remarks to-night, I seek to cultivate 
that highest courtesy of a speaker, which is found in 
clearness. 

I. I begin with the necessity of the Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise. In the wrong of Slavery, as defined hy 
existing law, this necessity is plainly apparent ; nor 
can any man within the sound of my voice, who listens 
to the authentic words of the law, hesitate in my con- 
clusion. A wrong so grievous and unquestionable 
should not be allowed to continue. For the honor of 
human nature, and for the good of all concerned, it 
should at once cease to exist. On this simple statement, 
as a corner-stone, I found the necessity of the Anti- 
Slavery Enterprise. 

I do not dwell, sir, on the many tales which come 
from the house of bondage ; on the bitter sorrows there 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AXD DIGNITY. 481 

undergone ; on the fle,sli, galled by the manacle or 
spirting blood beneath the la.sh ; on the human form 
mutilated by the knife, or seared by red-hot iron ; on 
the ferocious scent of blood-hounds in chase of human 
prey ; on the sale of fathers and mothers, husbands 
and wives, brothers and sisters, little children — even 
infants — at the auction-block ; on the practical prostra- 
tion of all rights, all ties, and even all hope ; on the 
deadly injury to morals, substituting concubinage for 
marriage, and changing the whole land of Slavery into 
a by-word of shame, only fitly pictured by the language 
of Dante when he called his own degraded country a 
House of 111 Fame ; * and last of all, on the pernicious 
influence upon the master as well as the slave, showing 
itself too often, even by his own confession, in rude- 
ness of manners and character, and especially in that 
blindness which renders him insensible to the wrongs 
he upholds, while he, 

" so perfect is his misery, 



Not once perceives his foul disfigurement, 
But boasts himself more comely than before. ' ' t 

On these things I do not dwell, although volumes are 
at hand of unquestionable facts and of illustrative story, 
so just and happy as to \ie with fact, out of which I 
might draw, until, like Macbeth, you had supped full 
of horrors. 

But all these I put aside ; not because I do not 
regard them of moment in exhibiting the true character 
of Slavery, but because I desire to present this argu- 
ment on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, 

♦ Purgat. — Canto VI. Ahi serva Italia bordello ! 

t Milton's Comus. 
41 



482 ANTI-SLAYEHY ENTERPHISE ; ITS 

or suspicion, even from slave-masters themselves. Not 
on triiimpliant story, not even on indisputable facts, do 
I now accuse Slavery, but on its character, as revealed 
in its own simple definition of itself. Out of its own 
mouth do I condemn it. By the laiv of Slavery, man, 
created in the image of God, is divested of his human 
character, and declared to be a mere chattel. That 
this statement may not seem to be put forward without 
precise authority, I quote the law of two different 
States. The civil code of Louisiana thus defines a 
slave : 

" A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he 
belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his 
industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, 
nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master." — 
Civil Code, Art. 35. 

The law of another polished slave State gives this 

definition : 

" Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged 
in law to be chattels fcrsonal, in the hands of their owners, and 
possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all 
intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." — 2 Brev. 
Dig. 229. {South Carolina.) 

And a careful writer. Judge Stroud, in a work of 

juridical as well as philanthropic merit, thus sums up 

the law : 

" The cardinal principle of Slavery — that the slave is not to 
be ranked among sentient beings, but among things — is an 
article of property — a chattel personal — obtains as undoubted 
law in all of these (the slave) States." — Stroud^ s Laws of 
Slavery, 22. 

Sir, this is enough. As out of its small egg crawls 
forth the slimy, scaly, reptile crocodile, so out of this 
simple definition crawls forth the whole slimy, sc^ly. 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 483 

reptile monstrosity, by Mhich a man is changed into a 
chattel, — a person is converted into a thin^, — a soul 
is transmuted into merchandise. According to this 
very definition, the slave is held simply for the good 
of his master, to whose behests, his life, liberty and 
happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be bar- 
tered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped 
as cargo, stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked 
off at public auction, and even staked at the gaming- 
table on the hazard of a card or die. The slave may 
seem to have a wife ; but he has not ; for his wife be- 
longs to his master. He may seem to have a child ; but 
he has not ; for his child belongs to his master. He 
may be filled with the desire of knowledge, opening to 
him the gates of hope on earth and in heaven ; but the 
master may impiously close this sacred pursuit. Thus 
is he robbed not merely of privileges, but of himself ; not 
merely of money and labor, but of wife and children ; 
not merely of time and opportunity, but of every assur- 
ance of happiness ; not merely of earthly hope, but of 
all those divine aspirations that spring from the Foun- 
tain of Light. He is not merely restrained in liberty, 
but totally deprived of it; not merely curtailed in 
rights, but absolutely stripped of them ; not merely 
loaded with burthens, but changed into a beast of 
burthen ; not merely bent in countenance to the earth, 
but sunk to the legal level of a quadruped ; not merely 
exposed to personal cruelty, but deprived of his charac- 
ter as a person ; not merely compelled to involuntary 
labor, but degraded to be a rude tiling; not merely 
shut out from knowledge, but wrested from his place 
in the human family. And all t/iis, sir, is according 
to (he siinple law of Slaceri/. 



484 ANTI-SLAYEHY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

Nor is even this all. The law, by cumulative pro- 
visions, positively forbids that a slave shall be taught 
to read. Hear this, fellow-citizens, and confess, that 
no barbarism of despotism, no extravagance of tyranny, 
no excess of impiety can be more blasphemous or 
deadly. " Train up a child in the way he should go," 
is the lesson of sacred wisdom ; but the law of Slavery 
boldly prohibits any such training, and dooms the child 
to hopeless ignorance and degradation. " Let there be 
light," was the Divine utterance at the verv dawn of 
creation, — and this commandment, travelling with the 
ages and the hours, still speaks with the voice of God ; 
but the law of Slavery says, " Let there be darkness." 

But it is earnestly averred that slave-masters are 
humane, and that slaves are treated with kindness. 
These averments, however, I properly put aside, pre- 
cisely as I have already put aside the multitudinous 
illustrations from the cruelty of Slavery. On the sim- 
ple letter of the law I take my stand, and do not go 
beyond what is there nominated. The masses of men 
are not better than their laws, and, whatever may be 
the eminence of individual virtue, it is not reasonable 
to infer that the masses of slave-masters are better than 
the law of Slavery. And, since this law submits the 
slave to their irresponsible control, with power to bind 
and to scourge — to shut the soul from knowledge — 
to separate families — to unclasp the infant from a 
mother's breast, and the wife from a husband's arms, 
— it is natural to conclude that such enormities are 
sanctioned by them, while the brutal prohibition of 
instruction — by supplementary law — gives crowning 
evidence of their complete complicity. And this con- 
clusion must exist unquestioned, just so long as the 



NECESSITY, rn.VCTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 485 

law exists unrepealed. Cease, then, to blazon the 
humanity of slave-masters. Tell me not of the lenity 
M'ith which this cruel law is tempered to its unhappy 
subjects. Tell me not of the sympathy which over- 
flows from the mansion of the master to the cabin of 
the slave. In vain you assert these instances. In vain 
you show that there arc individuals who do not exert 
the wickedness of the law. The law still endures. 
Slavery, which it defines and upholds, continues to 
outrage Public Opinion, and, within the limits of our 
Republic, upwards of three millions of human beings, 
guilty only of a skin not colored like your own, are 
left the victims of its unrighteous, irresponsible power. 

Power divorced from right is devilish ; power with- 
out the check of responsibility is tyrannical ; and I 
need not go back to the authority of Plato, when I 
assert, that the most cohiplcte injustice is that which 
is erected into the forni of law. But all these things 
concur in Slavery. It is, then, on the testimony of 
slave-masters, solemnly, legislatively, judicially attested 
in the very law itself, that I now arraign this institu- 
tion, as an outrage upon man and his Creator. And 
here is the necessity of the Anti-Slavery Enterprise. 
A wrong so transcendent, so loathsome, so direful, 
must be encountered ichcrcvc?' it can he ^'cached, and 
the battle must be continued without truce or com- 
promise, until the field is entirely w^on. Freedom and 
Slavery can hold no divided empire ; nor can there 
be any true repose until Freedom is everywhere estab- 
lished. 

To the nrccssifi/ of tlic An(i-Slavcry I'^nlerpriso, there 
are two — and only two — vital objections ; one founded 
on the alleged distinction of race, and the other on the 
4\* 



486 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

alleged sanction of Christianity. All other objections 
are of an inferior character, or are directed logically at 
its practicahility . Of these two leading objections, let 
me briefly speak. 

1. And, first, of the alleged distinction of race. 
This objection itself assumes two different forms, one 
founded on a prophetic malediction in the Old Testa- 
ment, and the other on the professed observations of 
recent science. Its importance is apparent in the obvi- 
ous fact, that, unless such distinction be clearly and 
unmistakably established, every argument by which our 
own freedom is vindicated, — every applause awarded 
to the successful rebellion of our fathers, — every in- 
dignant word ever hurled against the enslavement of 
our white fellow-citizens by Algerine corsairs, must 
plead trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation of 
Slavery, whether white or black. 

It is said that the Africans are the posterity of Ham, 
the son of Noah, through Canaan, who was cursed by 
Noah, to be the servant of his brethren, and that this 
malediction has fallen upon all his descendants, including 
the unhappy Africans, — who are accordingly devoted 
by God, through unending generations, to unending 
bondage. Such is the favorite argument often put 
forth at the South, and more than once directly ad- 
dressed to myself. Here, for instance, is a passage 
from a letter recently received ; " You need not per- 
sist," says the writer, " in confounding Japhcth's chil- 
dren with Ham's, and making both races one, and 
arguing on their rights as those of man broadly." And 
I have been seriously assured that until this objection 
is answered, it will be in vain to press my views upon 
Congress or the country. Listen now to the texts 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 487 

of the Old Testament which arc so strangely em- 
ployed : 

" And he (Noah) said, cursed be Canain : a servant of ser- 
vants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed 1)6 
the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. God 
shall enlai'ge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, 
and Canaan shall be his servant." — Genesis, chap, ix 20-27. 

That is all ; and I need only read these words iu 
order to expose the whole transpicuous humbug. But 
I am tempted to add, that, to justify this objection, it 
will be necessary to maintain at least five different 
propositions, as essential links in the chain of the 
African slave ; Jirst, that, by this malediction, Canaan 
himself was actually changed into a chattel, whereas, 
he is simply made the servant of his brethi-en ; secondly, 
that not merely Canaan, but all his posterity, to the 
remotest generation, was so changed, whereas the 
language has no such extent ; thirdly, that the African 
actually belongs to the posterity of Canaan, — an 
ethnographical assumption absurdly difficult to estab- 
lish ; fourthly, that each of the descendants of Shem 
and Japheth has a right to hold an African fellow-man 
as a chattel, — a proj^osition which finds no semblance 
of support ; and, fifthly, that every slave-master is 
truly descended from Shem or Ja|iheth, — a pedigree 
which no anxiety or audacity can prove ! This plain 
analvsis, which may fitly excite a smile, shows the five- 
fold absurdity of an attempt to found this revolting 
wrong on 

*' Any successive title, long and dark, 
Drawn from the mouldy rolls of Noah's ai'k." ♦ 

The small bigotry which could find comfort in these 

* Di'vdcii's Absalom and Av.-liil<>j.lii'l. 



488 ANTI-SLAVERY EXTEEPE-ISE ; ITS 

texts, has been lately exalted by the voice of science, 
which has undertaken to suggest that the different 
races of men are not derived from a single pair, but 
from several distinct stocks, according to their several 
distinct characteristics ; and it has been audaciously 
argued that the African is so far inferior, as to lose all 
title to that liberty which is the birthright of the lordly 
white. Now I have neither time nor disposition on 
this occasion, to discuss the question of the unity of 
the races ; nor is it necessary to my present purpose. 
It may be that the different races of men proceeded 
from different stocks ; but there is but one great Hu- 
man Family, in which Caucasian and African, Chinese 
and Indian, are all brothers, children of one Father, 
and heirs to one happiness, — alike on earth and in 
heaven. " Star-eyed science " cannot shake this ever- 
lasting truth. It may vainly exhibit peculiarities in 
the African, by which he is distinguishable from the 
Caucasian. It may, in his physical form and intellect- 
ual character, presume to find the stamp of permanent 
inferiority. But by no reach of learning, by no torture 
of fact, by no effrontery of dogma, can it show that he 
is not a man. And as a man he stands before you an 
unquestionable member of the Human Family, and 
entitled to all the rights of man. You can claim nothing 
for yourself, as man, which you must not accord to him. 
Life, liherty and the pursuit of happiness, — which you 
proudly declare to be your own inalienable, God-given 
rights, and to the support of which your fathers pledged 
their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, are his by the 
same immortal title that they are yours. 

2. From the objection founded on the alleged dis- 
tinction of race, I pass to that other founded on the 



NECESSITY, PB.VCTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 489 

alleged sanction of Slavej'jj hy Christianity. And, 
striving to be brief, I shall not undertake to reconcile 
texts often quoted from the Old Testament, which, 
whatever may be their import, arc all absorbed in the 
New ; nor shall I stop to co;isidcr the precise inter- 
pretation of the oft-quoted phrase, Servants, obey your 
masters; nor seek to weigh any such imperfect injunc- 
tion in the scales against those grand commandments, 
on which hang all the law and the prophets. Surely, 
in the example and teachings of the Saviour, who lifted 
up the down-trodden, who enjoined purity of life, and 
overflowed with tenderness- even to little children, 
human ingenuity can find no apology for an institution 
which tramples on man, — which defiles woman, — 
and sweeps little children beneath the hammer of the 
auctioneer. If to any one these things seem to have 
the license of Christianity, it is only because they have 
first secured a license in his own soul. Men are prone 
to find in uncertain, disconnected texts, a confirmation 
of their own personal prejudices or preposessions. And 
I — who am no divine, but only a simple layman — 
make bold to say, that whoever finds in the Gospel 
any sanction of Slavery, finds there merely a reflection 
of himself. On a matter so irresistibly clear, authority 
is superfluous ; but an eminent character, who as poet 
makes us forget his high place as philosopher, and as 
philosopher, makes us forget his high place as theolo- 
gian, has exposed the essential antagonism between 
Christianity and Slavery, in a few pregnant words 
which you will be glad to hear, — particularly as, I 
believe, they have not been before introduced into this 
discussion. "• By a principle essential to Christianity," 
says Coleridge, " ql person is eternally differenced from a 



490 ANTI-SLATERY ENTEEPRISE J ITS 

tiling ; so that the idea of a Human Being necessarily 
excludes the idea of property in that Being.'''' ^' 

With regret, though not with astonishment, I learn 
that a Boston divine has sought to throw the seamless 
garment of Christ over this shocking wrong. But I 
am patient, and see clearly how vain will be his effort, 
when I call to mind, that, within this very century, 
other divines sought to throw the same seamless gar- 
ment over the more shocking slave-trade ; and that, 
among many publications, a little book, was then put 
forth with the name of a reverend clergyman on the 
title-page, to prove that " the African trade for negro 
slaves is consistent with the principles of humanity 
and revealed religion ; " f and, thinking of these 
things, I am ready to say with Shakespeare, 

" In religion, 

What damned error, but some sober brow 
Will bless it and approve it with a text ? ' ' 

In the support of Slavery, it is the habit to per- 
vert texts and to invent authority. Even St. Paul is 
vouched for a wrong which his Christian life rebukes. 
Great stress is now laid on his example, as it appears 
in the epistle to Philemon, written at Rome, and sent 
by Onesimus, a servant. From the single chapter 
constituting the entire epistle, I take the following 
passage, in ten verses, which is strangely invoked for 
Slavery : 

" I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten 
in my bonds ; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but 

* Coleridge's Dissertation introductory to the Ency. Metrop. 

t Tliis was by the Rev. Thomas Thompson. Boswell's Defence 
of the Slave-trade was kindred in character. Life of Jthuscii, 
vol. iv. p. 55. 



NECESSITY, rRAfTirATUTTTV AXD DIOXITV. 4(ll 

now profitable to thcc and to mc ; whom I have sent np;aln; thou, 
therefore, receive hhn, that is, mine own bowels ; whom I would 
have retained with mc, that in thy stead he might have minis- 
tered unto me In the bonds of the gospel ; but without thy mind 
would I do nothing, that thy benefit shuuld not be as it were of 
necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for 
a season, that thou shouldst receive him for ever ; not now as a 
servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to lue, 
but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord ? 
If thou count mc, therefore, a partner, receive him as myself. If 
he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine ac- 
count. I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay 
it ; albeit, I do not say to tliee how thou owest unto me even 
thine own self besides. " — Epistle to Philemon, verses 10- 19. 

Out of this affectionate epistle,, in which St. Paul 
calls the converted servant, Onesimus, his son, pre- 
cisely as in another epistle he calls Timothy his son, 
Slavery has been elaborately vindicated, and the great 
Apostle to the Gentiles has been made the very tute- 
lary saint of the Slave-hunter. Now, without relying 
on minute criticism, to infer his real judgment of 
Slavery from his condemnation on another occasion of 
-' men-stealers," or, according to the original text, 
slave-traders, in company with " murderers of fathers, 
and murderers of mothers," and without undertaking 
to show that the present epistle, when truly interpreted, 
is a protest against Slavery, and a voice for Freedom, 
— all of which might be done, — I content myself by 
calling attention to two things, apparent on its face, 
and in themselves an all-suihcicnt response. First, 
while it appears that Onesimus had been in some way 
the servant of Fhilemon, it does not appear that he 
had ever been held as a slave, much less as a chattel ; 
and how gross and monstrous is the effort to derive a 



492 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE; ITS 

wrong, by which, man is changed to a chattel, out of 
words, whether in the Constitution of our country, or 
in the Bible, which do not explicitly, unequivocally 
and exclusively define this wrong ! Secondly, in 
charging Onesimus with this epistle to Philemon, 
the Apostle announces him as " not now a servant, 
but above a servant, a brother beloved," and he 
enjoins upon his correspondent the hospitality due 
only to a freeman, saying expressly, " If thou count 
me, therefore, a partner, receive him as myself ; " ay, 
su', not as slave, not even as servant, but as a 
brother beloved, even as the Apostle himself. Thus 
with apostolic pen wrote Paul to his disciple, Philemon. 
Beyond all doubt, in these words of gentleness, bene- 
diction and emancipation, droj^ping with celestial, 
soul-awakening power, there can be no justification for 
a conspiracy, which, beginning with the treachery of 
Iscariot, and the temptation of pieces of silver, seeks, 
by fraud, brutality and violence, through officers of 
the law armed to the teeth, like pirates, and amidst 
soldiers who degrade their uniform, to hurl a fellow- 
man back into the lash-resounding den of American 
Slavery ; and if any one can thus pervert this benefi- 
cent example, allow me to say, that he gives too 
much occasion to doubt his intelligence or his sin- 
cerity. 

Certainly I am right in thus stripping from Slavery 
the apology of Christianity, which it has tenaciously 
hugged ; and here I leave the first part of my subject, 
assuming against every objection the Necessity of our 
Enterprise. » 

II. I am now brought, in the second place, to con- 



NECESSITY, niACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 493 

sider the Peacticability of the Enterprise. And 
here the way is easy. In showinj;- its necessity, I 
have ah'eady demonstrated its practicability ; for the 
former includes the latter, as the greater includes the 
less. Whatever is necessary must be practicable. By 
a decree Avhich has ever been a by-word of tyranny, 
the Israelites were compelled to make bricks without 
straw ; but it is not according to the ways of a benev- 
olent Providence, that man should be constrained to 
do what cannot be done. Besides, the Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise is right ; and the right is always prac- 
ticable. 

I know well the little faith which the world has in 
the triumph of principles, and I readily imagine the 
despair with which our object is regarded; but not on 
this account am I disheartened. That exuberant wri- 
ter. Sir Thomas Browne, breaks into an ecstatic wish 
for some new difficulty in Christian belief, that his 
faith might have a new victory, and an eminent enthu- 
siast went so far as to say, that he believed because 
it was impossible — credo quia impossihile. But no 
such exalted faith is now required. Here is no im- 
possibility, nor is there any difficulty which -will not 
yield to a faithful, well-directed endeavor. If to any 
timid soul the Enterprise seems impossible because it 
is too beautiful, then I say at once that it is too beau- 
tiful not to be possible. 

But descending from these summits, let me show 
plainly the object which it seeks to accomplish, and 
herein you shall see and confess its complete practica- 
bility. While discountenancing all prejudice of color 
and every establishment of caste, the Anti- Slavery En- 
terprise — at least so far as I may speak for it — does 
42 



494 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

not undertake to change human nature, or to force any 
individual into relations of life for which lie is not 
morally, intellectually and socially adapted ; nor does 
it necessarily assume that a race, degraded for long 
generations under the iron heel of bondage, can be 
lifted at once into all the political privileges of an 
American citizen. But, sir, it does confidently assume, 
against all question, contradiction, or assault whatever, 
that every man is entitled to life^ liberty^ and the pur- 
suit of happiness ; and^ with equal conjidence, it asserts 
that every individual^ who wears the humanform, whether 
Mack or white, should at once be recognized as man. I 
know not when this is done, what other trials may be 
in wait for the unhappy African ; but this I do know, 
that the An ti- Slavery Enterprise will then have tri- 
umphed, and the institution of Slavery, as defined by 
existing law, will no longer shock mankind. 

In this work the first essential, practical requisite is, 
that the question shall be openly and frankly con- 
fronted. Do not put it aside. Do not blink it out of 
sight. Do not dodge it. Approach it. Study it. 
Ponder it. Deal with it. Let it rest in the illumina- 
tion of speech, conversation and the press. Let it fill 
the thoughts of the statesman and the prayers of the 
pulpit. When Slavery is thus regarded, its true char- 
acter will be recognized as a hateful assemblage of un- 
questionable wrongs under the sanction of existing law, 
and good men will be moved at once to apply the 
remedy. Already even its zealots admit that its 
" abuses " should be removed. This is their word 
and not mine. Alas ! alas ! sir, it is these very 
" abuses " which constitute its component parts, with- 
out which it would not exist, even as the scourges in 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AXD DIOXITY. 495 

a bundle witli the axe constituted the dread fasces of 
the llonian lictor. Take away these, and the whole 
embodied outrage will disappear. Surely that central 
assumption — more deadly than the axe itself — by 
which man is changed into a chattel, may be abandoned ; 
and is not this practicable ? The associate scourges by 
which that transcendent " abuse " is surrounded, may, 
one by one, be subtracted. The " abuse " which sub- 
stitutes concubinage for marriage — the "abuse" 
which annuls the parental relation — the " abuse " 
which closes the portals of knowledge — the " abuse " 
which tyrannically usurps all the labor of anotiicr — 
now upheld by positive law, may by positive law be 
abolished. To say that this is not practicable, in the 
nineteenth century, would be a scandal upon mankind, 
and just in proportion as these " abuses " cease to have 
the sanction of law, will the institution of Slavery cease 
to exist. The African, whatever may then be his con- 
dition, will no longer be the slave over whose wrongs 
and sorrows the world thi'obs at times fiercely indignant, 
and at times painfully sad, while with outstretched 
arms, he sends forth the piteous cry, " Am I not a man 
and a brother ? " 

In pressing forward to this result, the inquiry is 
often presented, to what extent, if any, shall compen- 
sation be allowed to the slave-masters ? Clearly, if 
the point be determined by absolute justice, not the 
masters but the slaves mil be entitled to compensation ; 
for it is the slaves, who, throughout weary generations, 
have been deprived of their toil, and all its fruits which 
went to enrich their masters, besides, it seems hardly 
reasonable to pay for the relinquishment of those dis- 
gusting " abuses," which, in their aggregation, consti- 



496 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTEEPEISE ; ITS 

tiite the bundle of Slavery. Pray, sir, by what tariff, 
price current, or principle of equation, shall their 
several values be estimated ? What sum shall be 
counted out as the proper price for the abandonment 
of that pretension — more indecent than the jus primcB 
noctis of the feudal age — which leaves woman, 
whether in the arms of master or slave, always a con- 
cubine ? What bribe shall be proffered for the restora- 
tion of God-given paternal rights ? What money 
shall be paid for taking off the padlock by which souls 
are fastened down in darkness ? How much for a 
quit-claim to labor now meanly exacted by the strong 
from the weak ? And what compensation shall be 
awarded for the egregious assumption, condemned by 
reason and abhorred by piety, which changes a man 
into a thing ? I put these questions without undertaking 
to pass ujDon them. Shrinking instinctively from any 
recognition of rights founded on ivrongs, I find myself 
shrinking also from any austere verdict, which shall 
deny the means necessary to the great consummation 
we seek. Our fathers, under Washington, did not 
hesitate by Act of Congress, to appropriate largely for 
the ransom of white fellow-citizens enslaved by Alge- 
rine corsairs ; and, following this example, I am dis- 
posed to consider the question of compensation as one 
of expediency, to be determined by the exigency of 
the hour and the constitutional powers of the Govern- 
ment ; though such is my desire to see the foul fiend 
of Slavery in flight, that I could not hesitate to build 
even a Bridge of Gold, if necessary, to promote his 
escape. 

The Practicahility of the Anti-Slavery Enterprise 
has been constantly (questioned, often so superficially. 



NECESSITY, rRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 497 

as to be answered at once. I shall not take time to 
consider the allegation, founded on considerations of 
economy, which audaciously assumes that Slave Labor 
is more advantageous than Free Labor — that Slavery 
is more profitable than Freedom ; for this is all ex- 
ploded by the official tables of the census ; nor that 
other futile argument, that the slaves are not prepared 
for Freedom, and, therefore, should not be precipitated 
into this condition, — for that is no better than the 
ancient Greek folly, where the anxious mother would 
not allow her son to go into the water until he had 
first learned to swim. But, as against the Necessity 
of the Anti- Slavery Enterprise, there were two chief 
objections, so, also, against its Practicability there are 
two ; the first, founded on its alleged danger to the 
master, and the second, on its alleged damage to the 
slave himself. 

1. The first objection, founded on the alleged danger 
to the tnastcr, most generally takes the extravagant 
form, that the slave, if released from his present con- 
dition, would cut his master's throat. Here is a 
blatant paradox, which can pass for reason only among 
those who have lost their reason. With an absurdity 
which finds no parallel except in the defences of Slavery, 
it assumes that the African, when treated justly, will 
show a vindictiveness which he does not exhibit when 
treated unj ustly ; that when elevated by the blessings 
of Freedom, he will develop an appetite for blood 
which he never manifested when crushed by the curse 
of bondage. At present, the slave sees his \\'ife rav- 
ished from liis arms — sees his infant swept away to 
the auction block — sees the heavenly gates of knowl- 
edge shut upcm him — sees his industry and all its 
42* 



498 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE; ITS 

jfruits unjustly snatched by another — sees himself and 
offspring doomed to a servitude from which there is no 
redemption ; and still his master sleeps secure. AVill 
the master sleep less secure, Avhen the slave no longer 
smarts under these revolting atrocities ? I will not 
trifle with your intelligence, or with the quick-passing 
hour, by arguing this question. 

But there is a lofty example, brightening the his- 
toric page, by which the seal of experience is affixed 
to the conclusions of reason ; and you would hardly 
pardon me if I failed to adduce it. By virtue of a 
single Act of Parliament, the slaves of the British West 
Indies were changed at once to freedmen ; and this 
great transition was accomplished absolutely without 
personal danger of any kind to the master. And yet 
the chance of danger there was greater far than among 
us. In our broad country, the slaves are overshadowed 
by a more than six-fold white population. Only in two 
States — South Carolina and Mississippi — do the 
slaves outnumber the w^hites, and there but slightly, 
w^hile in the entire Slave States, the whites outnumber 
the slaves by many millions. But it was otherwise in 
the British West Indies, where the whites were over- 
shadowed by a more than six-fold population. The 
slaves were 800,000, while the whites numbered only 
131,000, distributed in different proportions on the 
different islands. And this disproportion has since in- 
creased rather than diminished, always without danger 
to the whites. In Jamaica, the largest of these pos- 
sessions, there are now upwards of 400,000 Africans, 
and only 37,000 whites ; in Barbadoes, the next larg- 
est possession, there are 120,000 Africans, and only 
15,000 whites ; in St. Lucia, 19,500 Africans, and only 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AST) DIGNITY. 499 

GOO whites ; in Tobago, 14,000 Africans, and only GOO 
whites ; in Montserrat, GOOO Africans, and only loO 
whites ; and in the Grenadines, upwards of GOOO Afri- 
cans, and less than 50 whites. And yet in all these 
places, the authorities attest the good behavior of the 
Africans. Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor of Jamaica, 
in his speech to the Assembly, declared that their con- 
duct " proves how well they deserved the boon of 
Freedom." Another Governor of another island dwells 
on the " peculiarly rare instances of the commission of 
grave or sanguinary crimes among the emancipated 
portion of these islands ; " and the Queen of England, 
in a speech from the throne, has announced that the 
complete and final emancipation of the Africans had 
'" taken place without any disturbance of public order 
and tranquillity." In this example I hail new con- 
firmation of the rule that the highest safety is in doing 
right ; and thus do I dismiss the objection founded on 
the alleged danger to the master. 

2. And I am now brought to the second objection, 
founded on the alleged damage fa the slave. It is 
common among the partisans of Slavery, to assert that 
our Enterprise has actually retarded the very cause it 
seeks to promote ; and this paradoxical accusation, 
which might naturally show itself among the rank 
weeds of the South, is cherished here on our Northern 
soil, by those who anxiously look for any fig-leaf with 
which to cover their indifference or tergiversation. 

This peculiar form of complaint is an old dcWce, 
which has been instinctively employed on otlier occa- 
sions until it ha.5 ceased to be even plausible. Thus, 
throughout all times, has every good cause been en- 
countered. The Saviour was nailed to the cross with 



500 ANTI-SLAVEEY ENTERPEISE ; ITS 

a crown of thorns on his head, as a disturber of that 
peace on earth which he came to declare. The disci- 
ples, while preaching the Gospel of forgiveness and 
good will, were stoned as preachers of sedition and 
discord. The reformers, who sought to establish a 
higher piety and faith, were burnt at the stake as 
blasphemers and infidels. Patriots, in all ages, who 
have striven for their country's good, have been doom- 
ed to the scaffold or to exile, even as their country's 
enemies. And those brave Englishmen, who, at 
home, under the lead of Edmund Burke, even against 
their own country, espoused the cause of our fathers, 
^ shared the same illogical impeachment, which was 
touched to the quick by that orator statesman, when, 
after exposing its essential vice, " in attributing the 
ill-effect of ill-judged conduct to the arguments used 
to dissuade us from it," he denounced it as " very 
absurd, but very common in modern practice, and very 
wicked." Ay, sir, it is common in modern practice. 
In England, it has vainly renewed itself with special 
frequency against the Bible Societies ; against the 
friends of education ; against the patrons of vaccina- 
tion ; against the partisans of peace, all of whom have 
been openly arraigned as provoking and increasing the 
very evils, whether of infidelity, idleness, disease, or 
war, which they benignly sought to check. And to 
bring an instance which is precisely applicable to our 
own, Wilberforce, when conducting the Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise of England, first against the slave-trade 
and then against Slavery itself, was told that those 
efforts, by which his name is now consecrated forever- 
more, tended to increase the hardships of the slave, 
even to the extent of rivettins: anew his chains. Such 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 501 

are tlic precedents for the imputation to which our 
Enterprise is exposed ; and such, also, are the prece- 
dents by which I exhibit the fallacy of the imputation. 

Sir, I do not doubt that the Enterprise has produced 
heat and irritation, amounting often to inflammation, 
among slave-masters, which, to superficial minds, may 
seem inconsistent with success ; but which the careful 
observer will recognize at once as the natural and not 
unhealthy eflfort of a diseased body, to purge itself of 
existing impurities ; and just in proportion to the 
malignity of the concealed poison, will be the extent 
of inflammation. A distemper like Slaver}' cannot be 
ejected like a splinter. It is, perhaps, too much to ex- 
pect that men thus tortured should reason calmly — 
that patients thus suff*ering should comprclicnd the 
true nature of their case and kindly acknowledge the 
beneficent work ; but not on this account can it be 
suspended. 

In the face of this complaint, I assert that the Anti- 
Slavery Enterprise has already accomplished incalcula- 
ble good. Even now it touches the national heart as 
it never before was touched, sweeping its strings with 
a might to draw forth emotions such as no political 
struggle has ever evoked. It moves the young, the 
middle-aged and the old. It enters the familv circle, 
and mingles with the flame of the household hearth. 
It reaches the souls of mothers, wives, sisters and 
daughters, filling all with a now aspiration for justice 
on earth, and awakening not merely a sentiment 
against Slavery, such as prevailed with our fathers, 
but a deep, undying conviction of its wrong, and a 
determination to leave no cttbrt unattempted for its 
removal. With the sympathies t)f all Christendom as 



502 ANTI-SLAVEEY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

allies, it lias already encompassed the slave-masters by 
a moral blockade, invisible to the eye, but more potent 
than navies, from which there can be no escape except 
in final capitulation. Thus it has created the irresisti- 
ble influence which itself constitutes the beginning of 
success. Already there are signs of change. In com- 
mon speech, as well as in writing, among slave-masters 
the bondman is no longer called a slave, but a servant, 
— thus, by a soft substitution, concealing and con- 
demning the true relation. Even newspapers in the 
land of bondasrc blush with indisrnation at the hunt of 
men by blood-hounds, thus protesting against an un- 
questionable incident of Slavery. Other signs are 
found in the added comfort of the slave ; in the en- 
larged attention to his wants ; in the experiments now 
beginning, by which the slave is enabled to share in 
the profits of his labor, and thus finally secure his 
freedom ; and, above all, in the consciousness among 
slave-masters themselves, that they dwell now as never 
before under the keen observation of an ever- wakeful 
Public Opinion, quickened by an ever- wakeful Public 
Press. Nor is this all. Only lately propositions have 
been introduced into the Legislatures of different States, 
and countenanced by Governors, to mitigate the exist- 
ing law of Slavery ; and, almost while speaking, I have 
received the drafts of two different memorials, — one 
addressed to the Legislature of A'irginia, and the other 
to that of North Carolina, — asking for the slave three 
things, which it will be monstrous to refuse, but which, 
if conceded, will take from Slavery its existing charac- 
ter ; — I mean, first, the protection of the marriage 
relation ; secondly, the protection of the parental rela- 
tion ; and, thirdly, the privilege of knowledge. Grant 



NECESSITY, PRACTlCABlLll 1^ AND DIGNITY. 50.3 

these, and the girdled Upas tree soon must die. Sir, 
amidst these tokens of present success, and the augu- 
ries of the future, I am not disturbed by any complaints 
of seeming damage. " Though it consume our own 
dwelling, who does not venerate fire, without which 
human life can hardly exist on earth," says the Hindoo 
proverb ; and the time is even now at hand when the 
Anti- Slavery Enterprise, which is the very fire of 
Freedom, with all its incidental excesses or excite- 
ments, will be hailed with a similar regard. 

III. And now, in the third place, the Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise, which I have shown to be at once necessary 
and practicable, is commended by its inherent Dig- 
xiTY'. Here the reasons are obvious and unanswer- 
able. 

Its object is benevolent ; nor is there, in the dreary 
annals of the Past, a single Enterprise which stands 
forth more clearly and indisputably entitled to this 
character. With unsurpassed and touching magnani- 
mity, it see^s to benefit the lowly whom your eyes 
have not seen, and who are ignorant even of your 
labors, while it demands and receives a self-sacrifice 
calculated to ennoble an enterprise of even question- 
able merit. Its true rank is among works properly 
called philanthrojnc — the title of highest honor on 
earth. " I take goodness in this sense,*' says liOrd 
Bacon in his Essays, " the affecting of the iceal of men ^ 
which is what the Grecians call Philanthropcia — of 
all virtues and dignities of the mind the greatest, being 
the character of the Deity ; and witliout it, man is a 
busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a 
kind of vermin." Lord Bacon was right, and, per- 



504 ANTI-SLATERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

haps, unconsciously followed a higher authority ; for, 
when Moses asked the Lord to show unto him His 
glory, the Lord said, " I will make all my goodness to 
pass before thee." Ah! sir, Peace has trophies fairer 
and more perennial than any snatched from fields of 
blood, but among all these, the fairest and most peren- 
nial are the trophies of beneficence. Scholarship, 
literature, jurisprudence, art, may wear their well- 
deserved honors ; but an Enterprise of goodness de- 
serves, and will yet receive, a higher palm than these. 

In other aspects its dignity is apparent. It concerns 
the cause of Human Freedom, which, from the earliest 
days, has been the darling of history. By all the 
memories of the Past ; by the stories of childhood and 
the studies of youth; by every example of magnani- 
mous virtue ; by every aspiration for the good and 
true ; by the fame of the martyrs swelling through all 
time ; by the renown of patriots whose lives are land- 
marks of progress ; by the praise lavished upon our 
fathers, you are summoned to this work. Unless Free- 
dom be an illusion, and Benevolence an error, you 
cannot resist the appeal. But our cause is nobler even 
than that of our fathers, inasmuch as it is more ex- 
alted to struggle for the freedom of others than for 
our own. 

Its practical importance at this moment gives to it 
an additional eminence. Whether measured by the 
number of beings it seeks to benefit ; by the magnitude 
of the wrongs it hopes to relieve ; by the difficulties 
with which it is beset ; by the political relations which 
it affects ; or by the ability and character it has enlist- 
ed, the cause of the slave now assumes proportions of 
grandeur which dwarf all other interests in our broad 



NECESSITY, rilACTICABILTTY AND DIGNITY. 50o 

country. In Its presence the macliinations of politi- 
cians, the aspirations of office-seekers and the subter- 
fuges of party, all sink below even their ordinary 
insignificance. For myself, sir, I can see little else 
at this time among us which can tempt out on to the 
exposed steeps of public life an honest man, who 
wishes, by something that he does, to leave the world 
better than he found it. I can see little else which 
can afford any of those satisfactions which an honest 
man should covet. Nor is there any cause which so 
surely promises final success ; 

" Oh ! a fair cause stands firm and will abide ; 
Legions of angels fight upon its side ! " * 

It is written that in the last days there shall be 
scoffers, and even this Enterprise, thus philanthropic, 
has not escaped their aspersions. And as the objec- 
tions to its Necessity were two-fold, and the objections 
to its Practicability two-fold, so, also, are the asper- 
sions two-fold ; — fijst in the form of hard words, and 
secondly, by personal disparagement of those who are 
engaged in it. 

1. The hard words are manifold as the passions and 
prejudices of men ; but they generally end in the im- 
putation of " fanaticism." In such a cause, I am wil- 
ling to be called " fanatic," or what you will ;• I care 
not for aspersions, nor shall I shrink before hard 
words, either here or elsewhere. I hava learned from 
that great Englishman, Oliver Cromwell, that no man 
can be trusted '•'• who is afraid of a paper pellet ; " and 
I am too familiar with history not to know, that every 

* Antonio and Mcllida, a play by John Marston. 
43 



506 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

movement for reform, in Clinrch or State, every en- 
deavor for Human Liberty or Human Rights, has been 
thus assailed. I do not forget with what facility and 
frequency hard words have been employed — how that 
grandest character of many generations, the precursor 
of our own "Washington, without whose example our 
Republic might have failed — the great William, 
Prince of Orange, the founder of the Dutch Republic, 
the United States of Holland — I do not forget how 
he was publicly branded as " a perjurer and a pest of 
society ; " and, not to dwell on general instances, how 
the enterprise for the abolition of the slave-trade was 
characterized on the floor of Parliament by one emi- 
nent speaker as "mischievous," and by another as 
" visionary and delusive ; " and how the exalted char- 
acters which it had enlisted were arraigned by still 
another eminent speaker — none other than that Tarle- 
ton, so conspicuous as the commander of the British 
horse in the southern campaigns of our Revolution, 
but more conspicuous in politics at home, — "as a 
junto of sectaries, sophists, enthusiasts and fanat- 
ics; " and also were again arraigned by no less a 
person than a prince of the blood, the Duke of Clar- 
ence, afterwards William IV. of England, as " either 
fanatics or hypocrites," in one of which classes he 
openly- placed William Wilberforce. But impartial 
history, with immortal pen, has redressed these im- 
passioned judgments ; and the same impartial history 
will yet rcjudge the impassioned judgments of this 
hour. 

2. Hard words have been followed by personal dis- 
paragement^ and the sneer is often launched that our 
Enterprise lacks the authority of names eminent in 



NECESSITY, PllACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 507 

Churcli and State. If this be so, the more is the pity 
on their account ; for oiu' cause is needed to them 
more than they are needed to our cause. But alas ! 
it is only according to the example of history that it 
should be so. It is not the eminent in Church and 
State, the rich and powerful, the favorites of fortune 
and of place, who most promptly welcome Truth, 
when she heralds change in the existing order of 
things. It is others in poorer condition who throw 
ojien their hospitable hearts to the unattended stran- 
ger. Nay, more ; it is not the dwellers amidst the glare 
of the Avorld, but the humble and lowly, who most 
clearly discern new duties, — as the watchers, placed 
in the depths of a well, may observe the stars which 
are obscured to those who live in the effulgence of 
noon. Placed below the egotism and prejudice of 
self-interest, or of a class — below the cares and temp- 
tations of wealth or power — in the obscurity of com- 
mon life, they discern the new signal, and surrender 
themselves unreservedly to its guidance. The Sa- 
viour knew this. He did not call upon the Priest, or 
Levite, or Pharisee, to follow him ; but upon the 
humble fisherman by the sea of Galilee. 

And now, sir, I present to you the Anti- Slavery 
Enterprise vindicated in Necessity, Practicability and 
Dignity, against all objections. If there be any objec- 
tion which I have not answered, it is because I am 
not aware of its existence. It remains that I should 
give a practical conclusion to this whole matter, by 
showing, though in glimpses only, your Special 
Duties as Freemen of the Noktii. And, thank 
God I at last there is a North. 



508 ANTI-SLAVEKY ENTEEPEISE ; ITS 

Mr. President, it is not uncommon to hear persons 
among us at tlie North, confess the wrong of Slavery, 
and then, folding their hands in absolute listlessness, 
ejaculate, "What can we do about it?" Such men 
we encounter daily. You all know them. Among 
them are men in every department of human activity 
— who perpetually buy, build and plan — who shrink 
from no labor — who are daunted by no peril of com- 
mercial adventure, by no hardihood of industrial enter- 
prise — who, reaching in their undertakings across 
oceans and continents, would undertake " to put a 
girdle about the earth in forty seconds ; " and yet, 
disheartened, they can join in no effort against 
Slavery. Others there are, especially among the 
youthful and enthusiastic, who vainly sigh because 
they were not born in the age of chivalry, or at least 
in the days of the revolution, not thinking that in this 
Enterprise, there is an opportunity of lofty endeavor 
such as no Paladin of chivalry, or chief of the revolu- 
tion enjoyed. Others there are, who freely bestow 
their means and time upon the distant inaccessible 
heathen of another hemisphere, in the islands of the 
sea ; and yet they can do nothing to mitigate our 
grander heathenism here at home. While confessing 
that it ought to disappear from the earth, they forego, 
renounce and abandon all exertion against it. Others 
there are still, (such is human inconsistency !) who 
plant the tree in whose full-grown shade they can 
never expect to sit — who hopefully drop the acorn 
in the earth, trusting that the oak which it sends 
upward to the skies will shelter their children beneath 
its shade ; but they will do nothing to plant or nur- 
ture the great tree of Liberty, that it may cover v.ifch 
its arms unborn generations of men. 



KECESSITY, riLVCIlCABILlTY AND DIGMT\. 609 

Others still there are, particularly in the lar<;c cities, 
who content themselves by occasional contributions to 
the redemption of a slave. To this object they give 
out of ample riches, and thus seek to silence the mo- 
.uitions of conscience. Now, I would not discounte- 
nance any form of activity by which Human Freedom, 
even in a single case, may be secured. But I desire 
to say, that such an act — too often accompanied by a 
Pharisaical pretension, in strange contrast with the 
petty performance — cannot be considered an essential 
aid to the Auti- Slavery Enterprise. Not in this way 
can any impression be made on an evil so vast as 
Slavery — as you will clearly see by an illustration 
which I shall give. The god Thor, of Scandinavian 
mythology — whose strength surpassed that of Her- 
cules — was once challenged to drain a simple cup 
dry. He applied it to his lips, and with superhuman 
capacity drank, but the water did not recede even 
from the rim, and at last the god abandoned the effort. 
The failure of even his extraordinary strength was 
explained, when he learned that the simple cup had 
communicated, by an invisible connection, with the 
whole vast 6cean behind, out of which it was per- 
petually supplied, and which remained absolutely 
unaffected by the effort. And just so will these 
occasions of charity, though encountered by the larg- 
est private means, be constantly renewed, for they 
communicate with the whole Black Sea of Slavery 
behind, out of which they are perpetually supplied, 
and which remains absolutely unaflfcctcd by the effort. 
Sir, private means may cope with individual necessi- 
ties, but they are powerless to redress the evils of a 
wicked institution. Charity is limited and local ; the 



510 ANTI-SLAYEET ENTEKPKISE ; ITS 

evils of Slavery are infinite and everywhere. Besides, 
a wrong organized and upheld by law, can be removed 
only through a change of the law. Not, then, by an 
occasional contribution to ransom a slave can youi 
duty be done in this great cause ; but only by earn- 
est, constant, valiant efforts against the institution — 
against the law — which makes slaves. 

I am not insensible to the difficulties of this work. 
Full well I know the power of Slavery. Full well I 
know all its various intrenchments in the church, the 
politics and the prejudices of the country. Full well I 
know the sensitive interests of property, amounting to 
many hundred millions of dollars, which are said to be 
at stake. But these things can furnish no motive or 
apology for indifference, or for any folding of the 
hands. Surely the wrong is not less wrong because 
it is gigantic ; the evil is not less evil because it is 
immeasurable ; nor can the duty of perpetual warfare, 
-with wrong, or evil, be in this instance suspended. 
Nay, because Slavery is powerful — because the En- 
terprise is difficult — therefore is the duty of all more 
exigent. The well-tempered soul does not yield to 
difficulties, but presses onward forever wdth increased 
resolution. 

And here the question occurs, which is so often 
pressed in argument, or in taunt. What have ice at the 
North to do with Slavery ? In answer, I might con- 
tent myself by saying that as members of the human 
family, bound together by the cords of a common 
manhood, there is no human wrong to which we can 
justly be insensible, nor is there any human sorrow 
which we should not seek to relieve ; but I prefer to 
say, on this occasion, that, as citizens of the United 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. ol 1 

States, anxious for the good name, tlie repose and the 
prosperity of the Republic — that it may be a blessing 
and not a curse to mankind — there is nothing among 
all its diversified interests, under the National Consti- 
tution, with which, at this moment, we have so much 
to do ; nor is there anything with regard to which our 
duties arc so irresistibly clear. I do not dwell on the 
scandal of Slavery in the national capital — of Slavery 
in the national territories — of the coast-wise slave- 
trade on the high seas beneath the national flag, — 
all of which are outside of State limits, and within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, where you and I, 
sir, and every freeman of the North, are compelled to 
share the responsibility and help to bind the chain. 
To dislodge Slavery from these usurped footholds 
under the Constitution, and thus at once to relieve 
ourselves from a grievous responsibility, and to begin 
the great work of emancipation, were an object worthy 
of an exalted ambition. But before even this can be 
commenced, there is a great Avork, more than any 
other important and urgent, which must be consum- 
mated in the domain of national politics, and also 
here at home in the Free States. The National Gov- 
ernment itself must be emancipated, so that it shall 
no longer wear the yoke of servitude ; and Slavery in 
all its pretensions must be dislodged from its usurped 
foothold, in the Free States themselves, thus relieving 
ourselves from a grievous responsibility at our own 
door, and emancipating the North. Emancipation, 
even within the national jurisdiction, can be achieved 
only through the emancipation of the Free States, 
accompanied by the complete emancipation of the 
National Government. Ay, sir, emancipation at the 



512 ANTl-SLATERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

South can be reached only through the emancipation 
af the North. And this is my answer to the in- 
terrogatory, What have we at the North to do with 
Slavery ? 

But the answer may be made yet more irresistible, 
w^hile, with mingled sorrow and shame, I portray 
the tyrannical power which holds us in thraldom. 
Notwithstanding all its excess of numbers, Avcalth 
and intelligence, the North is now the vassal of an 
OLIGARCHY, whose single inspiration conies from 
Slavery. According to the official tables of our recent 
census, the slave-masters — men, women, and children 
all told — are only THREE HUNDRED AND 
FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND ; and yet this small 
company now dominates over the Republic, deter- 
mines its national policy, disposes of its offices, and 
sways all to its absolute will. With a watchfulness 
that never sleeps, and an activity that never tires — 
with as many eyes as Argus, and as many arms as 
Briareus — the SLAVE OLIGARCHY asserts its 
perpetual and insatiate masterdom ; now seizing a 
broad territory once covered by a time-honored ordi- 
nance of Freedom ; now threatening to wrest Cuba 
from Spain by violent war, or hardly less violent pur- 
chase ; now hankering for another slice of Mexico, 
merely to find new scope for Slavery ; now proposing 
once more to open the hideous, heaven-defying Slave- 
trade, and thus to replenish its shambles with human 
flesh ; and now, by the lips of an eminent Senator, 
asserting an audacious claim to the whole group of 
the West Indies, whether held by Holland, Spain, 
France, or England, as " our Southern Islands," while 
it assails the independence of Hayti, and stretches its 



NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY. 513 

treacherous ambition even to the distant valley of the 
Amazon. 

In maintaining its power, the Slave Oligarchy has 
applied a new test for office, very different from that 
of Jefferson ; " Is he honest ? is he capable ? is he 
faithful to the Constitution ? " These things are all 
forgotten now in the controlling question, " Is he 
faithful to Slavery ? " With arrogant ostracism it 
excludes from every national office all who cannot 
respond to this test. So complete and irrational has 
this tyranny become, that, at this moment, while I 
now speak, could Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin, 
once more descend from their spheres above, to mingle 
in our affairs and bless us with their wisdom, not one 
of them, with his recorded, unretracted opinions on 
Slavery, could receive a nomination for the Presidency 
from a National Convention of either of the late great 
political parties ; nor, stranger stiU, could either of 
these sainted patriots, whose names alone open a per- 
petual fountain of gratitude in all your hearts, be 
confirmed by the Senate of the United States for any 
political function whatever under the National Govern- 
ment — not even for the office of Postmaster. What 
I now say, amidst your natural astonishment, I have 
more than once uttered from my seat in the Senate, 
and no man there has made answer, for no man, who 
has sat in its secret sessions and there learned the test 
which is practically applied, could make answer ; and 
I ask you to accept this statement as my testimony 
derived from the experience which has been my lot. 
Yes, fellow-citizens, had this test prevailed in the 
earlier days, Washington — first in war, first in peace, 
first in tlie hearts of his countrymen — could not 



514 ANTI-SLAVj:ilY ENTERPRISE; ITS 

have been created Generalissimo of the American 
forces ; Jefferson could not have taken his place on 
the Committee to draft the Declaration of Independ- 
ence ; and Franklin could not have gone forth to 
France, with the commission of the infant Republic, 
to secure the invaluable alliance of that ancient king- 
dom. 

And this giant strength is used with a giant heart- 
lessness. By a cruel enactment, which has no source 
in the Constitution — which defies justice — which 
tramples on humanity — and which rebels against 
God, the Free States are made the hunting-ground for 
slaves, and you, and I, and all good citizens, are sum- 
moned to join in the loathsome and abhorred work. 
Your hearts and judgments, swift to feel and to con- 
demn, will not require me to expose here the abomi- 
nation of the Fugitive Slave Bill or its utter unconsti- 
tutionality. Elsewhere I have done this, and never 
been answered. Nor will you expect that an enact- 
ment, so entirely devoid of all just sanction, should be 
called by the sacred name of law. History still repeats 
the language in which our fathers persevered, when 
they denounced the last emanation of British tyranny 
which heralded the Revolution, as the Boston Port 
Bill^ and I am content with this precedent. I have 
said that if any man finds in the Gospel any support 
of Slavery, it is because Slavery is already in himself ; 
so do I now say, if any man finds in the Constitution 
of our country any support of the Fugitive Slave Bill, 
it is because that Bill is already in himself. One of 
our ancient masters — Aristotle, I think — tells us 
that every man has a beast in his bosom ; but the 
Northern citizen, who has the Fugitive Slave Bill 



NECESSITY, rRACTIC.VBTLITY AXD DIGNITY. 515 

there, has worse than a beast — a devil ! And yet In 
this Rill — more even than in the ostracism at which 
you rebel — does the Slave Oligarchy stand confessed; 
heartless, grasping, tyrannical ; careless of humanity, 
right, or the Constitution ; wanting that foundation of 
justice which is the essential base of every civilized 
community ; stuck together only by confederacy in 
spoliation ; and constituting in itself a magnum Jatro- 
cinium ; while it degrades the Free States to the con- 
dition of a slave plantation, under the lash of a vulgar, 
despised and revolting overseer. 

Surely, fellow-citizens, without hesitation or post- 
ponement you will insist that this Oligarchy shall be 
overthrown ; and here is the foremost among the 
special duties of the North, now required for the honor 
of the republic, for our own defence, and in obedience 
to God. Urging this comprehensive duty, I ought to 
have hours rather than minutes before me ; but, in a 
few words, you shall see its comprehensive importance. 
Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and the wickedness 
of the Fugitive Slave Bill will be expelled from the 
statute book. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and 
Slavery will cease at once in the national capital. 
Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and liberty will be- 
come the universal law of all the national territories. 
Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and the Slave-trade 
will no longer skulk along our coasts, beneath the 
national flag. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and 
the national government will be at length divorced 
from Slavery. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and 
the national policy mil be exchanged from Slavery 
to Freedom. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — and 
the North will no longer be the vassal of the South. 



516 AT<rTI-SLAVEIlY ENTERPBISE ; ITS 

Prostrate the Slave Oligarcliy — and the North v/ill 
be admitted to its just share in the trusts and honors 
of the Republic. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy — 
and you will possess the master-key to unlock the 
whole house of bondage. Prostrate the Slave Oligar- 
chy — and the gates of emancipation will be open at 
the South. 

But, without waiting for this consummation, there 
is another special duty to be done here at home, on 
our own soil, which must be made free in reality, as 
in name. And here I shall speak frankly, though 
not without a proper sense of the responsibility of my 
words. I know that I cannot address you entirely as 
a private citizen ; but I shall say nothing here, which 
I have not said elsewhere, and which I shall not be 
proud to vindicate everywhere. " A lie," it has been 
declared, " should be trampled out and extinguished 
forever," and surely you will do nothing less with a 
tyrannical and wicked enactment. The Fugitive Slave 
Bill, while it continues unrepealed, must be made a 
dead letter ; not by violence ; not by any unconstitu- 
tional activity or intervention ; not even by hasty con- 
flict between jurisdictions ; but by an aroused Public 
Opinion, which, in its irresistible might, shall blast 
with contempt, indignation and abhorrence, all who 
consent to be its agents. Thus did our fathers blast 
all who became the agents of the Stamp Act; and 
surely their motive was small compared with ours. 
The Slave-hunter who drags his victim from Africa is 
loathed as a monster ; but I defy any acuteness of 
reason to indicate the moral difference between his act, 
and that of the Slave-hunter who drags his victim 
from our Northern free soil. A few puny persons, 



NECESSITY, rilACTICABILITT AND DIGNITY. 517 

calling themselves the Congress of the United States, 
with the titles of Representatives and Senators, cannot 
turn wrong into right — cannot change a man into a 
thing — cannot reverse the irreversible law of God — 
cannot make him wicked who hunts a slave on the 
burning sands of Congo or Guinea, and make him 
virtuous who hunts a slave in the colder streets of 
Boston or New York. Nor can any acuteness of reason 
distinguish between the bill of sale from the kidnap- 
per, by which the unhappy African was originally 
transferred in Congo or Guinea, and the certificate of 
the Commissioner, by which, when once again in 
Freedom, he was reduced anew to bondage. The 
acts are kindred, and should share a kindred condem- 
nation. 

One man's virtue becomes a standard of excellence 
for all ; and there is now in Boston, a simple citizen, 
whose example may be a lesson to Commissioners, 
Marshals, Magistrates ; while it fills all with the beauty 
of a generous act. I refer to Mr. Hayes, who resigned 
his place in the city police rather than take any part in 
the pack of the Slave-hunter. He is now the door- 
keeper of the public edifice which has been honored 
this winter by the triumphant lectures on Slavery 
Better be a door-keeper in the house of the Lord than 
a dweller in the tents of the ungodly. For myself, 
let me say, that I can imagine no office, no salary, no 
consideration, which I would not gladly forego, rather 
than become in any way an agent for the enslavement 
of my brother-man. Where, for me, would be comfort 
or solace after such a work ! In dreams and wakiner 
hours, in solitude and in the street, in the study of the 
open book and in conversation with the world, — 
44 



518 ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE ; ITS 

wherever I turned, there my victim would stare me in 
the face ; while from the distant rice-fields and sugar 
plantations of the South, his cries beneath the vindic- 
tive lash, his moans at the thought of liberty once his, 
now, alas ! ravished away, would pursue me, repeating 
the tale of his fearful doom, and sounding — forever 
sounding — in my ears, " Thou art the man." Mr. 
President, may no such terrible voice fall on your soul 
or mine ! 

Yes, sir, here our duty is plain and paramount. 
While the Slave Oligarchy, through its unrepealed 
Slave Bill, undertakes to enslave our free soil, we can 
only turn for protection to a Public Opinion, worthy 
of a humane, just and religious people, which shall 
keep perpetual guard over the liberties of all within 
our borders ; nay more., which, like the flaming sword 
of the cherubim at the gates of Paradise, turning on 
every side, shall prevent any Slave-hunter from ever 
setting foot on our sacred soil. Elsewhere he may 
pursue his human prey ; he may employ his congenial 
blood-hounds, and exult in his successful game. Eut 
into these domains of Freedom he must not come. 
And this Public Opinon, with Freedom as its watch- 
word, must proclaim not only the overthrow of the 
Slave Bill, but also the overthrow of the Slave Oli- 
garchy behind, — the two pressing duties of the North, 
essential to our own emancipation ; and believe me, 
sir, M'hile they remain undone, nothing is done. 

Mr. President, far already have I trespassed upon 
your generous patience ; but there are other things 
which still press for utterance. Something would I 
say of the arguments by which our Enterprise is com- 



NECESSITY, rilACTICABILlXV -VNU DIGNITY. 519 

mended; something also of the appeal it makes to 
men of every condition ; and something also of union, 
as a vital necessity among all who love Freedom. 

I know not if our work can be soon accomplished. 
I know not, sir, if you or I can live to see in our Re- 
public the vows of the Fathers at length fulfilled, as 
the last fetter falls from the limbs of the last slave. 
But one thing I do know, beyond all doubt or ques- 
tion, that this Enterprise must go on — that in its iire- 
sistible current, it will sweep schools, colleges, churches, 
the intelligence, the conscience, and the religious 
aspirations of the land, while all, who stand in its way 
or speak evil of it, are laying up for their children, if 
not for themselves, days of sorrow and shame. Better 
to strive in this cause, even unsuccessfully, than never 
to strive at all. 

There is no weapon in the celestial armory of truth ; 
there is no sweet influence from the skies ; there is no 
generous word that ever dropped from human lips, 
which may not be employed. Ours, too, is the argu- 
ment alike of the Conservative and the Reformer, for 
our cause stands on the truest conservatism and the 
truest reform. It seeks the conservation of Freedom 
itself and of its kindred historic principles ; it seeks 
also the reform of Slavery and of the kindred tyranny 
by which it is upheld. Religion, morals, justice, 
economy, the Constitution, may each and all be in- 
voked ; and one person is touched by one argument while 
another person is touched by another. You do not forget 
how Christopher Columbus won Isabella of Spain. to his 
enterprise of discovery. He first presented to her the 
temptation of extending her dominions ; but she hcaik- 
ened not. He next promised to her the dazzling 



520 ANTI-SLAVEKY ENTERPKISE ; ITS 

wealth of the Indies ; and still she hearkened not. 
But when at last was pictured to her pious imagination 
the poor heathen with souls to be saved, then the 
youthful Queen poured her royal jewels into the lap 
of the Genoese adventurer, and, at her expense, that 
small fleet was sent forth, which gave to Spain and to 
mankind a New World. 

As in this Enterprise, there is a place for every 
argument, so also is there a place for every man. Even 
as on the broad shield of Achilles, sculptured by 
divine art, was wrought every form of human activity ; 
so in this cause, which is the very shield of Freedom, 
whatever man can do by deed or speech, may find its 
place. One may act in one way, and another in 
another way ; but all must act. Providence is felt 
through individuals ; the dropping of water wears away 
the rock ; and no man can be so humble or poor as to 
be excused from this work, while to all the happy in 
genius, fortune or fame, it makes a special appeal. 
Here is room for the strengh of Luther, and the 
sweetness of Melancthon ; for the wisdom of age, and 
the ardor of youth ; for the judgment of the statesman, 
and the eloquence of the orator; for the grace of the 
scholar, and the aspiration of the poet ; for the learning 
of the professor, and the skill of the lawyer ; for the 
exhortation of the preacher, and the persuasion of the 
press ; for the various energy of the citizen, and the 
abounding sympathy of woman. 

And still one thing more is needed, without v/hich 
Libcrfrj'-loving men, and even their arguments, will 
fail in power — even as without charity all graces of 
knowledge, speech and faith are said to profit nothing. 
I mean that Vnity of Spirit — in itself a fountain of 



NECESSITY, rilACTICABlLITY AND DIGNITY. 521 

strength — which, filling the people of the North, 
shall make them tread under foot past antipathies, 
decayed dissensions, and those irritating names which 
now exist only as the tattered ensigns of ancient strife. 
It is right to he taught hy the enemy ; and with their 
example hcforc us and their power brandished in our 
very faces, we cannot hesitate. With them Slavery is 
made the main-spring, of political life, and the ab- 
sorbing centre of political activity ; with them all 
differences are swallowed up by this one idea, as all 
other rods were swallowed up by the rod of Aaron ; 
with them all unite to keep the national government 
under the control of slave-masters ; and surely we 
should not do less for Freedom than they do for Slavery. 
We too must he united. Among us at last mutual 
criticism, crimination, and feud, must give place to 
mutual sympathy, trust and alliance. Face to face 
against the Slave Oeigarchy must be rallied the 
UNITED MASSES of the North, in compact political 
association — planted on the everlasting base of justice 
— knit together by the instincts of a common danger, 
and by the holy sympathies of humanity — enkindled 
by a love of Freedom, not only for themselves, but for 
others — determined to enfranchise the national gov- 
ernment from degrading thraldom — and constituting 
the BACKBONE PARTY, powerful in numbers, 
wealth, and intelligence, but more powerful still in an 
inspiring cause. Let this be done, and victory will bo 
ours. 

44* 



THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS 
— THE OUTRAGES IN KANSAS — THE DIFFER- 
ENT POLITICAL PARTIES — THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY. 

SPEECH ON THE EVENING OF 2d NOVEMBER, 1855, AT FANEUIL 
HALL, BOSTON. 

Fellow-Citizens of Boston : Are you for Free- 
dom or are you for Slavery ? This is the question 
which you are to answer at the coming election. Above 
all other questions, whether national or local, it now 
lifts itself directly in the path of every voter, and calls 
for a plain and honest reply. There it is. It cannot 
be avoided. It cannot be banished away. It cannot 
be silenced. Forever sounding in our ears, it has a 
mood for every hour — stirring us at times as with the 
blast of a trumpet — then visiting us in solemn tones, 
like the bell which calls to prayer — and then again 
awaking us to unmistakable duty, like the same bell, 
when at midnight it summons all to stay the raging 
conflagration. 

And yet, there are persons among us who seek to 
put this great question aside. Some clamor for finan- 
cial reform, and hold up a tax-bill ; others clamor for 
a modification of the elective franchise, and they hold 
up the Pope ; some speak in the name of old parties, 
calling themselves Democrats or Whigs ; others in the 
name of a new party, which shall be nameless at pres- 

[522] 



THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USUEPATIOXS. 523 

ent. Surely tlie people of Massacliusetts will not bo 
diverted from the true issue — involving Freedom for 
broad territories and Freedom for themselves — by 
holding up a tax-bill or by holding up the Pope. The 
people of Massachusetts are intelligent and humane. 
They are not bulls to be turned aside by shaking in 
their eyes a bit of red cloth ; nor are they whales to 
be stopped by a tub. The pertinacious and exclusive 
advocacy with which, at this crisis of Freedom, humbler 
matters and even personal aspirations have been pressed, 
in disregard of a sacred cause, finds a prototype in an 
effort of selfishness, which, occurring at the very crisis 
of our Revolution, was chastised by the humor and 
eloquence of Patrick Henry. The story is familiar. 
Our small army, contending for Freedom, was reduced 
to the depths of distress : exposed, almost naked, to the 
rigors of a winter sky, and marking the frozen ground 
with the blood of shoeless feet. " Where is the man," 
said Patrick Henry, " who M'ould not have thrown 
open his fields, his barns, his cellars, the doors of his 
house, the portals of his breast, to receive the mean- 
est soldier in that little famished band ? Where is 
the man ? There he stands ; but whether the heart 
of an American beats in his bosom, you are to judge ? " 
It was to John Hook that he pointed, who was then 
pressing a vexatious claim for supplies taken for the 
use of these starving troops. " What notes of discord 
do I hear r " exclaimed the orator, " They are the notes 
of John Hook, hoarsely brawling through the patriot 
camp, Beef! Beef! Beef!"" And now, among us, 
the selfishness of John Hook is renewed, and politicians 
disturb the hour, as they hoarsely brawl their petty 
claims through our patriot camp. But above all thobC 



524 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USUEPATIONS ; 

is heard the great question, which will not be post- 
poned, Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery ? 
"Under which king, Bezonian, speak or die I " Are 
you for Freedom, with its priceless blessings, or are 
you for Slavery, with its countless wrongs and woes ? 
Are you for God, or are you for the Devil r 

Fellow-citizens, I speak plainly ; nor can words ex- 
hibiting the enormity of Slavery be too plain, Avhether 
it be regarded simply in the legislative and judicial 
decisions by which it is upheld, or in the unquestion- 
able facts by which its character is revealed. It has 
been my fortune latterly to see Slavery face to face in 
its own home, in the Slave States ; and I take this 
early opportunity to offer my testimony to the open 
barbarism which it sanctions. I have seen a human 
being knocked off at auction on the steps of a court 
house, and as the sale went on, compelled to open 
his mouth and show his teeth, like a horse ; I have 
been detained in a stage-coach, that our driver might, 
in the phrase of the country, "help lick a nigger ; " 
and I have been constrained, at a public table, to wit- 
ness the revolting spectacle of a poor slave, yet a child, 
almost felled to the floor by a blow on the head from 
a clenched fist. Such incidents were not calculated to 
shake my original convictions. The distant slave- 
holder, who, in generous solicitude for that truth which 
makes for Freedom, feared that, like a certain Doctor 
of Divinity, I might, under the influence of personal 
kindness, be hastily swayed from these convictions, 
may be assured that I saw nothing to change them in 
one tittle, but to confirm them ; while I was entirely 
satisfied that here in Massachusetts, where all read, 
the true character of Slavery is better known than in 



THE KErUBLICAN PAETY. 525 

the Slave States themselves, where ignorance and pre- 
judice close the avenues of knowledge. 

And now, grateful for the attention with which 
you honor me, I venture to hope that you are assem- 
bled honestly to hear the truth; not to gratify preju- 
dice, to appease personal antipathies, or to indulge a 
morbid appetite for excitement ; but with candor and 
your best discrimination, to weigh facts and arguments 
in order to determine the course of duty. I address 
myself particularly to the friends of Freedom — the 
Republicans — on whose invitation I appear to-night, 
but I make bold to ask you of other parties, who now 
listen, to divest yourselves for the time, of partisan 
constraint — to forget for the moment that you are 
Whigs or Democrats, or how you are called, and to 
remember only that you are 7?iew, with hearts to feel, 
with heads to understand, and with consciences to 
guide. Then only will you be in a condition to receive 
the truth. " If men are not aware of the probable bias 
of party over them, then they are so much the more 
likely to be blindly governed by it." Such is the wise 
remark of Wilberforce ; and I fear that among us there 
are too many who are unconsciously governed by such 
bias. There are men, who, while professing candor, 
yet show that the bitterness of party has entered into 
their whole character and lives, as the bitterness of the 
soil in Sardinia is said to appear even in its honey. 

At this election we do not choose a President of the 
United States, or member of Congress ; but a Gov- 
ernor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and 
other State officers. To a superficial observer, the 
occasion seems to be rather local than national : it 



626 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS TTSUEPATIONS ; 



seems to belong to State affairs rather tlian Federal — 
to Massachusetts rather than to the Union. And yet, 
such are our relations to the Union — such is the sol- 
idarity of these confederate States — so are we all knit 
together as a Plural Unit, that the great question which 
now disturbs and overshadows the whole country, be- 
comes at once national and local, addressing itself alike 
to the whole Republic and to each constituent part. 
Freedom in Kansas, and our own Freedom here at 
home, are both assailed. They must be defended. 
There are honorable responsibilities belonging to Mas- 
sachusetts, as an early and constant vindicator of Free- 
dom, which she cannot renounce. " If the trumpet 
give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for 
the battle?" The distant emigrant — the whole 
country — awaits the voice of our beloved Common- 
wealth in answer to the question, Are you for Freedom 
or are you for Slavery ? So transcendent, so exclusive, 
so all-absorbing at the present juncture is this question, 
that it is vain to speak of the position of candidates on 
other things. To be doubtful on this is to be wrong ; 
and to be wrong on this is to be wholly wrong. Pass- 
ino: strange it is that here in Massachusetts, in this 
nineteenth century, we should be constrained to put 
this question. Passing strange, that when it is put, 
there should be any hesitation to answer it, by voice 
and vote, in such way as to speak the loudest for Free- 
dom. 

A plain recital will show the urgency of this ques- 
tion. At the period of the Declaration of Independence, 
upwards of half a million colored persons were held 
as chattels in the United States. These unhappy 
people were originally stolen from Africa, or were the 



THE RErUULICAN PARTY. 527 

children of those who had been stolen, and, though 
distributed throughout the whole country, were to be 
found chiefly in the Southern States. The Slavery 
to which they were reduced was simply a continuation 
of the violence by which they had been originally 
robbed of their rights, and was of course as indefen- 
sible. The fathers of the Republic, leaders of the 
war of Independence, w^ere struck with the inconsis- 
tency of an appeal for their own liberties while hold- 
ing in bondage fellow-men, only " guilty of a skin 
not colored like their own." The same conviction 
animated the hearts of the people, whether at the North 
or South. Out of ample illustrations, I select one 
wdiich specially reveals this conviction, and possesses a 
local interest in this community. It is a deed of man- 
umission, made after our struggles had begun, and 
preserved in the Probate records of the County of 
Suffolk. Here it is : 

• 

" Know all men by these presents, that I, Joxatiian Jackson, 
of Newburyport, in the county of Essex, gentleman, in consider- 
ation of the impropriety I feel, and have long felt in beholding 
any person in constant bondage — rnore especially at a time when 
my country is so warmly contending for the liberty every man 
ought to enjoy — and having sometime since promised my negro 
man, Pomp, that I would give him his freedom, and in further 
consideration of five shillings, paid me by said Pomp, I do hereby 
liberate, manumit, and set him free ; and I do hereby remise 
and release unto said Pomp, all demands of whatever nature I 
have against said Pomp. 

" In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, 
this nineteenth June, 1776. 

" JoxATiiAX Jacksox. [Scal.] 

" Witness, Mary Coburn, William Noyes." 

Such was the general spirit. Public opinion found 



528 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY Alf D ITS TTSUEPATIONS ; 

free vent in every cliannel. By tlie literature of the 
time — by the voice of tlie ChurcL., and by the solemn 
judgment of the College, Slavery was condemned, 
while all the grandest names of our history were ar- 
rayed openly against it. Of these I might dwell on 
many ; but I am always pleased to mention an illus- 
trious triumvirate from whose concurring testimony 
there can be no appeal. There was Washington, who 
at one time declared that " it was among his first 
wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery 
might be abolished by law," and then at another, that 
to this end, "his suffrage should not be wanting." 
There also was Jefferson, who by early and precocious 
efforts for " total emancipation," placed himself fore- 
most among the Abolitionists of the land — perpetually 
denouncing Slavery — exposing the pernicious influ- 
ences upon the master, as well as the Slave — declar- 
ing that the love of justice and the love of country 
pleaded equally for the Slave, and that " the abolition 
of domestic Slavery was the greatest object of desire." 
There also was the venerable patriot, Benjamin Frank- 
lin, who did not hesitate to liken the American master 
of black Slaves to the Algerine corsair with his white 
Slaves, and who, as President of the earliest Abolition 
Society — the same of which Passmore Williamson is 
now the honored Secretary — by solemn petition, 
called upon Congress " to step to the very verge of the 
power vested in it to discourage every species of traffic 
in the persons of our fellow-men." Thus completely, 
by this triumvirate of Freedom, was Slavery con- 
demned, and the power of the Government invoked 
against it. 

By such men, and in such spirit, was the National 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 529 

Constitution framed. The emphatic words of the 
Declaration of Independence, which our country took 
upon its lips as baptismal vows, when it claimed a 
place among the nations of the earth, were not forgot- 
ten. The preamble to the Constitution renews them, 
when it declares the object of the people of the United 
States to be, among other things, " to establish justice, 
to promote the general welfare, and to secure the bless- 
ings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." Thus, ac- 
cording to undeniable words, the Constitution was 
ordained, not to establish, secure or sanction Slavery 
— not to promote the special interest of slave-masters, 
bound together in oligarchical combination — not to 
make Slavery national in any way, form or manner ; 
but to " establish justice," which condemns Slavery — 
" to promote the general welfare," which repudiates 
every Oligarchy — and "to secure the blessings of 
Liberty," in whose presence human bondage must 
cease. Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris 
broke forth in the language of an Abolitionist : " He 
never would concur in upholding domestic Slavery. 
It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of 
Heaven." In another mood, and with mild juridical 
phrase, Mr. Madison, himself a slaveholder, " thought it 
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea of property 
in man." The discreditable words. Slave and Slavery, 
were not allowed to find a place in the instrument, 
while a clause was subsequently added by way of 
amendment, — and, therefore, according to the rules of 
interpretation, particularly revealing the sentiments 
of the founders, — which is calculated, like the Declara- 
tion of Independence, if practically applied, to carry 
Freedom everywhere within the sphere of its influence. 
45 



530 THE SLAVE OLTGATICHT AND ITS USURPATIONS ; 

It was specifically declared that " no person shall be 
deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process 
oflaw^'' that is, without due presentment, indictment 
or other formal judical proceedings. Here is an ex- 
press guard of personal Liberty, and a prohibition of 
Slavery everywhere within the national jurisdiction. 

In this spirit was the National Constitution adopt- 
ed. In this spirit the National Government was first 
organized under Washington. And here there is a 
fact of peculiar significance, well worthy of perpetual 
memory. At the time this great chief took his first 
oath to support the Constitution of the United States, 
the National Ensign noiohere within the National Ter- 
ritory covered a single slave. On the sea, an execrable 
piracy, the trade in slaves, was still, to the national 
scahdal, tolerated beneath the national flag. In the 
States, as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter 
of local laws. Slavery, unhappily, found a home. But 
in the only territories at this time belonging to the 
Nation — the broad region of the North West — it 
had already, by the Ordinance of Freedom, been made 
impossible, even before the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion. The District of Columbia, with its Fated Dowry, 
had not yet been acquired. 

The original policy of the Republic, begun under 
the Confederation, and recognized at the initiation of 
the new Government, is clear and unmistakable. 
Compendiously expressed, it was non-intervention hy 
Congress with Slavery in the States, and its prohibition 
in all the national domain ; and also, as a corollary 
from this policy, the complete ascendency of the prin- 
ciple of Freedom in the National Government. Thus 
were reconciled all discordant feelings on this subject. 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 531 

Slave-masters were left at home in their respective 
States, without any intervention from Congress to hug 
Slavery until it stung them to contrition, while the 
great mass opposed to this wrong were properly ex- 
empted from any responsibility for it in the national 
domain, and the National Government was placed 
indubitably on the side of Freedom. 

Most true it is — beyond all question — that our 
Constitution was framed by the lovers of Human 
Rights ; that it was animated by then* divine spirit ; 
that the institution of Slavery was regarded by them 
with aversion, so that, though covertly alluded to, it 
was not named in the instrument ; that, according to 
the debates in the Convention, they refused to give it 
any "• sanction " or "to admit into the Constitution 
the idea of property in man," while they looked for- 
ward to the certain day when it would be obliterated 
from the land. Surely, fellow-citizens, they did not 
contemplate any Oligarchical combination, constituting 
a mighty Propaganda, such as we now witness, to up- 
hold and extend it ; nor can any person put his finger 
on any clause, phrase or word, which sanctions any 
such Propaganda; and, in making this assertion, I 
challenge criticism and reply. 

But the original policy of the Government did not 
long prevail. The generous sentiments, which filled 
the early patriots, giving to them historic grandeur, 
and which stamped upon the Kepublic, as upon the 
coin which it circulated, the very image and super- 
scription of LiBEiiTY, gradually lost their power. The 
blessings of Freedom being already secured to them- 
selves, the freemen of the land became indifferent to 
the Freedom of others. They ceased to think of the 



532 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS; 

Slaves. The slave-masters availed themselves of this 
indifference, and, though few in number, compared 
with the non-slave-masters, even in the Slave States, 
they have, under the influence of an imagined self-in- 
terest, by the skilful tactics of party, and especially by 
an unhesitating, persevering union among themselves 
— swaying by turns both the great political parties — 
succeeded, through a long succession of years, in ob- 
taining the mastery of the National Government, 
bending it to their purposes — compelling it to do 
their will, and imposing upon it a policy offensive to 
Freedom, and directly opposed to the sentiments of its 
founders ; while on the forehead of the Republic, once 
beaming with Liberty, they have stamped the image 
and superscription of Slavery. 

The actual number of slaveholders in the country 
was for a long time unknown, and, on this account, was 
naturally exaggerated. It was often represented to 
be very great. On one occasion, a distinguished Rep- 
resentative from Massachusetts, whose name will be 
ever cherished for his devotion to Human Rights, the 
Hon. Horace Mann, was rudely interrupted on the 
floor of Congress by a member from Alabama, who 
averred that the number of slaveholders was as many 
as three millions. At that time, there was no official 
document by which this assumption could be corrected. 
But at last we have it. The late census, taken in 1850, 
shows that the whole number of this peculiar class — 
embracing men, women and children, all told, who are 
so unfortunate as to hold slaves — was only three 
hundred and forty-seven thousand ; and, of this num- 
ber, the larger part are small slaveholders, leaving only 
ninety-two thousand persons as the owners of the great 



THE llEPUBUCAN rARTY. o3o 

mass of slaves, and as the substantial representatives 
of this class. And yet, this small company — some- 
times called the Slave Power, or Black Power, better 
called the Slave Oligarchy — now dominates over the 
llcpublic, determines its national policy, disposes of 
its offices, and sways all to its absolute will. Yes, 
fellow-citizens, it is an Oligarchy — odious beyond 
precedent ; heartless, grasping, tyrannical ; careless of 
humanity, right or the Constitution ; wanting that 
foundation of justice which is the essential base of 
every civilized community ; stuck together only by 
confederacy in spoliation ; and constituting in itself a 
viagnum latrocinium ; while it degrades the Free States 
to the condition of a slave plantation, under the lash 
of a vulgar, despised and revolting overseer. 

There is nothing in the National Government which 
the Slave Oligarchy does not appropriate. It entered 
into and possessed both the old political parties. Whig 
and Democrat — as witness their servile resolutions at 
Baltimore — making them one in subserviency, though 
double in form ; and renewing in them the mystery 
of the Siamese twins, which, though separate in body 
and different in name, were constrained, by an un- 
natural ligament, to a community of exertion. It now 
holds the keys of every office, from that of President 
down to the humblest Postmaster, compelling all to do 
its bidding. It organizes the Cabinet. It directs the 
Army and Navy. It manages every department of 
public business. It presides over the census. It con- 
trols the Smithsonian Institution, founded by the gen- 
erous charity of a foreigner, to promote the interests 
of knowledge. It subsidizes the national press, alike 
in the national capital and in the remotest village of 
43* 



534 THE SLATE OLIGASCHY AXD ITS USUKPATIOXS ; 

the North. It sits in the chair of the President of the 
Senate, and also in the chair of the Speaker of the 
House. It arranges the Committees of both bodies, 
placing at their head only the servitors of Slavery, and 
excluding therefrom the friends of Freedom, though 
entitled to such places by their character and the States 
they represent ; and thus it controls the legislation of 
the country. 

In maintaining its power, the Slave Oligarchy has 
applied a test for office, very different from that of 
Jefferson, " Is he honest ? Is he capable ? Is he 
faithful to the Constitution ? " These things are all 
forgotten now in the single question, " Is he faith- 
ful to Slavery r " With arrogant ostracism it excludes 
from every national office all who cannot respond 
to this test. So complete and irrational has this 
tyranny become, that at this moment, while I now 
speak, could Washington, or Jefferson, or Franklin, 
once more descend from their spheres above, to mingle 
in our affairs and bless us with their wisdom, not one 
of them, with his recorded, unreiracted opinions en 
Slavery could receive a nomination for the Presidency 
from either of the political parties calling themselves 
nalional ; nor, stranger still, could either of these 
sainted patriots, whose names alone open a perpetual 
fountain of gratitude in all your hearts, be confirmed 
by the Senate of the United States for any political 
function whatever, not even for the office of Postmas- 
ter. What I now say, amidst your natural astonish- 
ment, I have often said before in addressing the people, 
and more than once uttered from my scat in the Senate, 
and no man there has made answer, for no man who 
has sat in its secret sessions, and there learned the test 



THE EEPUBLICAN TARTY. 535 

which is practically applied, could make answer ; and 
I ask you to accept this statement as my testimony, 
derived from the experience of four years which has 
been my lot under the commission which I have re- 
ceived from our honored Commonwealth. Yes, fellow- 
citizens, had this test prevailed in the earlier days, 
Washington — first in war, first in peace, first in the 
hearts of his countrymen — could not have been cre- 
ated generalissimo of the American forces ; Jefferson 
could not have taken his place on the Committee to 
draft the Declaration of Independence ; and Franklin 
could not have gone forth to France, with the com- 
mission of the infant Republic, to secure the invaluable 
alliance of that ancient kingdom. 

All tyranny, like murder, is foul at the best ; but 
this is most foul, strange and unnatural, when it is 
considered that the States, which are the home of the 
Slave Oligarchy, are far inferior to the Free States in 
population, wealth, education, schools, churches, libra- 
ries, manufactures and resources of all kinds. By the 
last census, there was in the Free States a solid popu- 
lation of freemen, amounting to upwards of thirteen 
millions, while in the Slave States, there was a like 
population of only six millions. In other respects, 
important to civilization, the disparity was as great. 
And yet, from the beginning, they have taken to them- 
selves the lion's share among the honors and trusts of 
the Republic. But, without exposing the game of 
political "• sweepstakes," which the Slave Oligarchy 
has perpetually played — interesting as it would be — 
I prefer to hold up for one moment the assumptions, 
aggressions and usurpations by which, in defiance of 



53G THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AXD ITS USUilPATlOXS ; 

the Constitution, it has made Slavery national, when it 
is, in reality, sectional. Here is a brief catalogue : 

Early in this century, when the District of Columbia 
was finally occupied as the National Capitol, the Slave 
Oligarchy succeeded, in defiance of the spirit of the 
Constitution, and even of the express letter of one of 
its amendments, in securing for Slavery, within the 
District, the countenance of the National Government. 
Until then, Slavery had existed nowhere on the land 
within the reach and exclusive jurisdiction of this Gov- 
ernment. 

The Slave Oligarchy next secured for Slavery an- 
other recognition under the National Government, in 
the broad territory of Louisiana, purchased from 
France. 

The Slave Oligarchy next placed Slavery again 
under the sanction of the National Government, in the 
territory of Florida, purchased from Spain. 

The Slave Oligarchy, waxing powerful, was -able, 
after a severe struggle, to dictate terms to the National 
Government, in the Missouri Compromise, compelling 
it to receive that State into the Union with a slave- 
holding Constitution. 

The Slave Oligarchy instigated and carried on a 
most expensive war in Florida, mainly to recover fugi- 
tive slaves, thus degrading the army of the United 
States to be Slave-hunters. 

The Slave Oligarchy wrested from Mexico the Prov- 
ince of Texas, and, triumphing over all opposition, 
finally secured its admission into the Union, with a 
Constitution making Slavery perpetual. 

The Slave Oligarchy plunged the country in war 
with Mexico, in order to gain new lands for Slavery. 



THE RErUBLICAX TARTY. 537 

The Slave Oligarchy, with the meanness, as "svell 
as the insolenpe of tyranny, has compelled the National 
Government to abstain from acknowledging the neigh- 
bor republic of Hayti, where slaves have become free- 
men, and established an independent nation. 

The Slave Oligarchy has compelled the National 
Government to stoop ignobly before the British Queen, 
to secure compensation for slaves, who, in the exercise 
of the natural rights of man, had asserted and achieved 
their freedom on the Atlantic Ocean, and afterwards 
sought shelter in Bermuda. 

The Slave Oligarchy has compelled the National 
Government to seek to negotiate treaties for the sur- 
render of fugitive slaves, thus making our Republic 
assert abroad, in foreign lands, property in human 
flesh. 

The Slave Oligarchy has joined in declaring the 
foreign slave-trade piracy, but insists on the coastwise 
slave-trade, under the auspices of the National Gov- 
ernment. 

The Slave Oligarchy for several years rejected the 
petitions to Congress adverse to Slavery, thus', in order 
to shield this wrong, practically denying the right of 
petition. 

The Slave Oligarchy, in defiance of the privileges 
secured under the Constitution of the United States, 
imprisons the free colored citizens of Massachusetts, 
and sometimes sells them into bondage. 

The Slave Oligarchy insulted and exiled from Charles- 
ton and New Orleans, the honored representatives of 
Massachusetts, who were sent to those places with the 
commission of the Commonwealth, in order to throw 
the shield of the Constitution over her colored citizens. 



638 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS ; 

The Slave Oligarchy has, by the pen of Mr. Calhoun, 
as Secretary of State, in formal despatches, made the 
Republic stand before the nations of the earth as the 
vindicator of Slavery. 

The Slave Oligarchy has put forth the hideous 
effrontery that Slavery can go to all newly acquired 
territories, and enjoy the protection of the National 
Flag. 

The Slave Oligarchy has imposed upon the country 
an Act of Congress, for the recovery of fugitive slaves, 
revolting in its mandates, and many times uncon- 
stitutional ; especially on two grounds, firsts as a 
usurpation by Congress of powers not granted by the 
Constitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the 
States ; and secondly, as a denial of Trial by Jury, in 
a question of Personal Liberty, and a suit at common 
law. 

The Slave Oligarchy, in defiance of the declared 
desires of the Fathers to limit and discourage Slavery, 
has successively introduced into the Union, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Arkansas and Texas, as slave-holding States, thus, at 
each stage, fortifying its political power, and making 
the National Government give new sanction to 
Slavery. 

Such, fellow-citizens, are some of the assumptions, 
aggressions and usurpations of the Slave Oligarchy ! By 
such steps, the National Government has been perverted 
from its original purposes, its character changed, and its 
powers all surrendered to Slavery. Surely, no patriot 
soul can listen to this recital, without confessing that our 
first political duty is, at all hazards and without com- 
promise, to oppose this Oligarchy, to dislodge it from 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 539 

the National Government, and to bring the administra- 
tion back to that character wliich it enjoyed when first 
organized under Washington, himself an Abolitionist, 
and surrounded by Abolitionists, while the whole 
country, by its Church, its Colleges, its Literature, and 
all its best voices, was united against Slavery, and the 
National Flag nowhere within the national territory 
covered a single slave. 

Fellow-citizens, I have said enough to stir you ; 
but this humiliating tale is not yet finished. An Oli- 
garchy seeking to maintain an outrage like Slavery, 
and drawing its inspirations from this fountain of 
wickedness, is naturally base, false and heedless of 
justice. It is vain to expect that men, who have 
screwed themselves to become the propagandists of 
this enormity, will be constrained by any compromise, 
compact, bargain or plighted faith. As the less is 
contained in the greater,* so there is no vilcncss of dis- 
honesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly 
involved in the support of an enormity, which begins 
by changing man, created in the image of God, into a 
chattel, and sweeps little children away to the auction- 
block. A power which Heaven never gave, can be 
maintained only by means which Heaven can never 
sanction. And this conclusion of reason is confirmed 
by late experience ; and here I approach the special 
question under which the country now shakes from 
side to side. The protracted struggle of 1820, known 
as the Missouri Question, ended with the admission of 
Missouri as a slaveholding State, and the prohibition 
of Slavery in all the remaining territory, West of the 
Mississippi and North of 36° 30'. Here was a solemn 



540 THE SLATE OLIGARCHY AND ITS ITSUEPATIOIS'S ; 

act of legislation, called at tlic time a compromise, a 
covenant, a compact, first brought, forward by the Slave 
Oligarchy — vindicated by it in debate — finally sanc- 
tioned by its votes, also upheld at the time by a slave- 
holding President, James Monroe, and his cabinet — 
of whom a majority were slaveholders, including Mr. 
Calhoun himself — and made the condition of the ad- 
mission of Missouri — without which that State could 
not have been received into the Union. Suddenly, 
during the last year — without any notice in the pub- 
lic press or the prayer of a single petition — after an 
acquiescence of thirty-three years, and the irreclaim- 
able possession by the Slave Oligarchy of its special 
share in the provisions of this Compromise — in viola- 
tion of every obligation of honor, compact and good 
neighborhood — and in contemptuous disregard of the 
out-gushing sentiments of an aroused North, this time- 
honored Prohibition, in itself a Landmark of Freedom, 
was overturned, and the vast region, now known as 
Kansas and Nebraska, was opened to Slavery ; and this 
was done under the disgraceful lead of Northern poli- 
ticians, and with the undisguised complicity of a Nortli- 
ern President, forgetful of Freedom, forgetful also of 
his reiterated pledges, that during his administration 
the repose of the country should receive no shock. 

And all this was perpetrated under pretences of 
popular rights. Freedom was betrayed by a kiss. In 
defiance of an uninterrupted prescription down to our 
day — early sustained at the South as well as the North 
— leaning at once on Jefferson and Washington — 
sanctioned by all the authoritative names of our his- 
tory, and beginning with the great Ordinance by which 
Slavery was prohibited in the North West — it was 



TUE REPUBLICAN PAKTV. 541 

pretended that the people of the United States, who 
are the proprietors of the national domain, and ^vho, 
according to the Constitution, may " make all needful 
rules and regulations " for its government, neverthe- 
less were not its sovereigns — that they had no power 
to interdict Slavery there ; but that this eminent do- 
minion resided in the few settlers, called squatters, 
whom chance or a desire to better their fortunes, first 
hurried into these places. To this precarious handful, 
sprinkled over immense spaces, it was left, without any 
constraint from Congress, to decide, whether into these 
vast, unsettled lands, as into the veins of an infant, 
should be poured the festering poison of Slavery des- 
tined, as time advances, to show itself in cancers and 
leprous disease, or whether they should be filled with 
all the glowing life of Freedom. And this great 
power, transferred from Congress to these few settlers, 
was hailed by the new-fangled name of Squatter Sov- 
ereignty. 

It was fit that the original outrage perpretrated 
under such pretences, should be followed by other 
outrages perpetrated in defiance of these pretences. 
In the race of emigration, the freedom-loving freemen 
of the Xorth promised to obtain the ascendency, and 
in the exercise of the conceded sovereignty of the set- 
tlers, to prohibit Slavery. The Slave Oligarchy was 
aroused to other efforts. Of course it stuclc- at noth- 
ing. On the day of election when this vaunted popular 
sovereignty was fiiist invoked, hirelings from Missouri, 
having no home in the territory, entered it in bands 
of fifties and hundreds, and assuming an electoral 
franchise to which they had no claim, trampled under 
foot the Constitution and laws. Violently, ruthlessly 
46 



54:2 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIOXS ; 

the polls were possessed by these invaders. The same 
Northern President, who did not shrink from unblush- 
ing complicity in the original outrage, now assumed 
another complicity. Though prompt to lavish the 
Treasury, the Army and the Navy of the Republic in 
hunting a single slave through the streets of Boston, 
he could see the Constitution and laws, which he was 
sworn to protect, and those popular rights which he 
had affected to promote, all struck down in Kansas, 
and then give new scope to these invaders by the re- 
moval of the faithful Governor, — who had become 
obnoxious to the Slave Oligarchy because he would 
not become its tool, — and the substitution of another, 
who vindicated the dishonest choice by making haste, 
on his first arrival there, to embrace the partisans of 
Slavery. The legislature, which was constituted by 
the overthrow of the electoral franchise, proceeded to 
overthrow every safeguard of Freedom. At one swoop 
it adopted all the legislation of Missouri, including its 
Slave Code ; by another act it imposed unprecedented 
conditions upon the exercise of the electoral franchise, 
and by still another act it denounced the punislimeni 
of death no less than five times against as many differ- 
ent forms of interference with the alleged property in 
human flesh, while all who only write or speak against 
Slavery are adjudged to be felons. Yes, fellow-citizens, 
should any person there presume to print or cu'culate 
the speech in which* I now express my abhorrence of 
Slavery, and deny its constitutional existence anywhere 
within the national jurisdiction, he would become 
liable under this act as a felon. And this overthrow 
of all popular rights is done in the name of Popular 
Sovereignty. Surely its authors follow well the ex- 



THE RErUBLICAN rARTY. 543 

ample of the earliest Squatter Sovereign — none other 
than Satan — who, stealing into Eden, was there dis- 
covered, by the celestial angels, just beginning his 
work ; as Milton tells us, 

" him there they found 



Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve." 

Would you know the secret of this unprecedented 
endeavor, beginning with the repeal of the Prohibition 
of Slavery down to the latest atrocity ? The answer 
i^ at hand. It is not merely to provide new markets 
for Slaves, or even to guard Slavery in Missouri, but 
to build another Slave State, and thus, by the presence 
of two additional slaveholding Senators, to give in- 
creased preponderance to the Slave Oligarchy in the 
National Government. As men are murdered for the 
sake of their money, so is this territory blasted in 
peace and prosperity, in order to \vrcst its political in- 
fluence to the side of Slavery. 

But a single usurpation is not enough to employ the 
rapacious energies of our Oligarchy. At this moment, 
while the country is pained by the heartless conspiracy 
against Freedom in Kansas, we are startled by another 
effort, which contemplates, not merely the political 
subjugation of the National Government, but the ac- 
tual introduction of Slavery into the Free States. The 
vaunt has been made, that slaves will yet be counted 
m the sacred shadow of the monument on Bunker Hill, 
and more than one step has been taken towards this 
effrontery. A person of Virginia has asserted his right 
to hold slaves in New York on the way to Texas ; and 
this claim is still pending before the highest judicial 



544 THE SLAVE OLIGAKCHY AND ITS USUKPATIOXS ; 

tribunal of the land. A similar claim has been assert- 
ed in Pennsylvania, and thus far been sustained by 
the court. A blameless citizen, who — in obedience to 
his generous impulses and in harmony with the re- 
ceived law — merely gave notice to a person held as a 
slave in a Free State, that she was in reality free, has 
been thrust into jail, and now, after the lapse of 
months, still languishes there, the victim of this pre- 
tension ; while, — that no excess might be wanting in 
the madness of this tyranny — the great writ of Habeas 
Corpus, proudly known as the writ of deliverance, h^s 
been made the instrument of his imprisonment. Out- 
rage treads upon outrage, and great rights pass away 
to perish. Alas ! the needful tool for such work is too 
easily found in places low and high — in the alleys 
and cellars of Boston — on the bench of the judge 
— in the chair of the President. But it is the power 
behind which I arraign. The Slave Oligarchy does it; 
the Slave Oligarchy does it all. 

To the prostration of this Oligarchy you are bound 
by a three-fold cord of duty ; first, as you would secure 
Freedom for yourselves ; secondly, as you would up- 
hold Freedom in distant Kansas ; and thirdly, as you 
would preserve the Union in its early strength and 
integrity. The people of Kansas are, many of them, 
from Massachusetts — bone of our bone, flesh of our 
flesh; but as fellow-citizens under the Constitution, 
they are bound to us by ties which we cannot disown. 
Nay, more ; by the subtle cord which connects this 
embryo settlement with the Republic, they are made 
a part of us. The outrage which touches them touches 
us. ^V'hat galls them galls us. The fetter which 



THE RErUBLICAX rARTY. 54o 

binds the slave in Kansas binds every citizen in 
Massachusetts. Thus are we prompted to their rescue, 
not only to save them, but also to save ourselves. The 
tyranny which now treads them down, has already 
trampled on us, and only awaits an opportunity to do it 
again. In its complete overthrow is the only way of 
safety. Indeed, this must be done before anythin^^ 
else can be done. In vain you seek economy in the 
Government — improvement of rivers and harbors — 
or dignity and peace in our foreign relations, while 
this power holds the national purse and the national 
sword. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy, and the door 
will be wide open for all generous reforms. Oh ! the 
imagination loses itself in the vain endeavor to picture 
the good that will be then accomplished. Prostrate 
the Slave Oligarchy, and Liberty will become the uni- 
versal law of all the national territories ; Slavery will 
cease at once in the national capital ; the slave-trade 
will no longer skulk along our coasts beneath the 
national flag ; and the wickedness of the Fugitive 
Slave Bill will be driven from the statute book. Pros- 
trate the Slave Oligarchy, and the national Govern- 
ment will be at length divorced from Slavery, and the 
national policy will be changed from Slavery to Free- 
dom. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy, and the Xorth 
will no longer be the vassal of the South. Prostrate 
the Slave Oligarchy, and the North will be admitted 
to its just share in the trusts and honors of the He- 
public. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy, and you will 
possess the master-key with which to unlock the whole 
house of bondage. Prostrate the Slave Oligarchy, 
and the gates of emancipation will be open at the 
South. 

4G* 



546 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIOXS ; 

To this work, fellow-citizens, you are now summon- 
ed. By your votes you are to declare, not merely 
your predilection for men, but your devotion to princi- 
ples. Men are erring and mortal. Principles are 
steadfast and immortal. Forgetting all other things — 
especially forgetting men — you are to cast your votes 
so as best to promote Freedom. 

But in the choice of men we are driven to the or- 
ganization of parties ; and here c ccurs the practical 
question on which hinges our immediate duty, by 
what political party can our desire be accomplished ? 
There are individuals in all the parties, even the 
Democratic, who hate Slavery, and say so ; but a 
political party cannot be judged by the private opinions 
of some of its members. Something else, more solid 
and tangible, must appear. The party that we select 
to bear the burden and honor of our great controversy, 
must be adapted to the work. It must be a perfect 
machine. Wedded to Freedom, for better or for 
worse, and cleaving to it with a grasp never to be 
unloosed, it must be clear, open and unequivocal in 
its declarations, and must admit no other question to 
divert its energies. It must be all in Freedom, and, 
like Caesar's Avife, it must be above suspicion. But 
besides this character which it must sustain in Massa- 
chusetts, it must be prepared to take its place in close 
phalanx with the united masses of the North, now or- 
ganizing through all the Free States, junctccque umbone 
phalanges, for the protection of Freedom, and the over- 
throw of the Slave Oligarchy. 

Bearing these conditions in mind, there are three 
parties which we may dismiss, one by one, as they pass 
in review. Men do not gather grapes from thorns, 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 547 

nor figs from thistles ; nor do they expect patriotism 
from Benedict Arnold. A party which sustains the 
tyrannies and perfidies of the Slave Oligarchy, and is 
represented by the President, through whom has come 
so much of all our woe, need not occupy our time ; and 
such is the Democratic party. If there be within the 
sound of my voice a single person, who, professing 
sympathy with Freedom, still votes with this party, to 
him I would say : The name of Democrat is a tower of 
strength ; let it not be a bulwark of Slavery ; for the 
sake of a name do not sacrifice a thing ; for the sake of 
party do not siu'render Freedom. 

According to a familar rule, handed down from dis- 
tant antiquity, we are to say nothing but good of the 
dead. liow, then, shall I speak of the late powerful 
"Whig party — by whose giant contests the whole 
country was once upheaved — but which has now 
ceased to exist, except as the shadow of a name ? 
Here, in Massachusetts, a few who do not yet know 
that it is dead, have met together and proflfered their 
old allegiance. They are the Hip Van Winkles of our 
politics. This respectable character, falling asleep in the 
mountains, drowsed undisturbed throughout the whole 
war of the Revolution, and, then returnimg to his native 
village, ignorant of all that had passed, proposed to drink 
the health of King George. But our Whigs arc less 
tolerant and urbane than this awakened Dutchman. 
In petulant and irrational assumptions they are like 
the unfortunate judge, who, being aroused from his 
slumbers on the bench, by a sudden crash of thunder, 
exclaimed, " Mr. Crier, stop the noise in Court." The 
thunder would not be hushed ; nor will the voice of 
Freedom, now rcvcrb3rating throughout the land. 



548 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USUIIPATIO.XS ; 

Some there are among these who openly espouse the 
part of Slavery, while others, by their indificrence, 
place themselves in the same unhappy company. If 
their position at this moment were of sufficient impor- 
tance to justify grave remark, they should be exhibited 
as kindred in spirit and isolation to the Tories of our 
Revolution, or, at least, as the Bourbons of Massachu- 
setts — always claiming everything, learning nothing, 
forgetting nothing, and at last condemned by an 
aroused people for their disloyalty to Freedom. Let 
no jDerson who truly loves Freedom join this company, 
tempted by its name, its music, and its banners. 

There is still another party, which claims your votes, 
but permit me to say, at this crisis, with small pre- 
tence. I am at a loss to determine the name by which 
it may be properly called. It is sometimes known as 
the Know Nothing party ; sometimes as the American 
party ; but it cannot be entitled to these designations 
— if they be of any value — for it does not claim to 
belong to the organization, which first assumed and 
still retains them. It is an isolated combination, 
peculiar to Massachusetts, which, while professing 
certain political sentiments, is bound together by the 
suf)port of one of the candidates for Governor. At 
this moment, this is its controlling idea. It is, there- 
fore, a personal party ^ and I trust that I shall not be 
considered as departing from that courtesy which is 
with me a law, if I say that, in the absence of any ap- 
propriate name, expressive of principles, it may properly 
take its designation from the candidate it supports. 

Of course, such a party wants the first essential con- 
dition of the organization which we seek. It is a 
personal party, whose controlling idea is a predilection 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 549 

for a man and not a principle. Whatever may be the 
private sentiments of some of its members, clearly it is 
not a party wedded to Freedom, for better and for 
•worse, and cleaving to it with a grasp never to be un- 
loosed. While professing opposition to Slavery, it 
also arraigns Catholics and foreigners, and allows the 
question of their privileges to disturb its energies. It 
is not all in Freedom ; nor is it, like Cii^sar's wife, 
above suspicion. Besides, even as a party of Freedom, 
it is powerless from its isolation; for it stands by itself, 
and is in no way associated with that great phalanx 
now rallying throughout the North. In this condition 
should it continue to exist, it will, in the coming 
Presidential contest, from natural affinity lapse back 
into the American party of the country which is ranged 
on the side of Slavery. Of course, as a separate party, 
it is necessarily short-lived. Cut off from the main 
body, it may still show a brief vitality, as the head of 
a turtle still bites for some days after it is severed 
from the neck : but it can have no permanent exist- 
ence. Surely this is not the party of Freedom which 
we seek. 

But the incompetency of this party, as the organ of 
our cause, is enhanced by the uncongenial secrecy in 
which it had its origin and yet shrouds itself. For 
myself, let me say that, on the floor of the Senate I 
have striven, by vote and speech, in conjunction with 
my distinguished friend Mr. Chase, for the limitation 
of the secret sessions of that body, under shelter of 
which so much of the business of the nation is trans- 
acted, and I have there presented the example of that 
ancient Roman, — who bade his architect sj to con- 



550 THE SLAVE OLIGAHCHT AND ITS TJSTJIIPATIONS ; 

struct his house that his guests and all that they did 
might be seen by the world, — as a fit model for 
American institutions. What I have urged there, I 
now urge here. But the special aims which this party 
proposes, seem to be in harmony with the darkness in 
which it begins. Even if justifiable, on any grounds 
of public policy, they should not be associated with 
our cause ; but I am unwilling to allude to them with- 
out expressing my frank dissent. 

It is proposed to attaint men for their religion and 
also for their birth. If, this object can prevail, vain 
are the triumphs of Civil Freedom in its many hard- 
fought fields ; vain is that religious toleration which we 
all profess. The fires of Smithfield, the tortures of 
the Inquisition, the proscriptions of non-conformists, 
may all be revived. It was- mainly to escape these 
outrages, dictated by a dominant religious sect, that 
our country was early settled, in one place by Quakers, 
who set at naught all forms ; in another, by Puritans, 
who disowned bishops ; in another, by Episcopalians, 
who take their name from bishops ; and in yet another, 
by Catholics, Avho look to the Pope as their Simitual 
Father. Slowly among the struggling sects was 
evolved the great idea of the Equality of all men before 
the law without regard to religious belief ; nor can any 
party now organize a proscription merely for religious 
belief, without calling in question this unquestionable 
principle. 

But Catholics are mostly foreigners, and, on this 
account, are condemned. Let us see if there be any 
reason in this ; and here indulge me with one word on 
foreigners. 

With the ancient Greeks, a foreigner was a harharian. 



THE RKPUULICAN TARTY. 551 

and with the ancient Romans, he was an enemy. \n 
early modern times, the austerity of this judgment was 
relaxed ; but, under the influence of feudalism, the 
different sovereignties, whether provinces or nations, 
were kept in a condition of isolation, from which they 
have been gradually passing until now, when pro- 
vinces arc merged into nations, and nations are giving 
signs that they too will yet commingle into one. 
In^ur country another example is already displayed. 
yTrom all nations people commingle here. As in ' 
ancient Corinth, by the accidental fusion of all metals,^ 
accumulated in the sacred temples, a peculiar metal 
was produced, better than any individual metal, even 
silver or gold ; so, perhaps, in the arrangements of I 
Providence, by the fusion of all races here, there may ( 
be a better race than any individual race, even Saxon ' 
or Celt. Originally settled from England, the llepub- 
lic has been strengthened and enriched by generous 
contributions of population from Scotland, Ireland, 
Switzerland, Sweden, France and Germany ; and the 
cry is still they come. ' At no time since tFe discovery 
of the New "World, has the army of emigrants pressed 
so strongly in this direction. Nearly half a million are 
annually landed on our shores. The manner in which 
they shall be received is one of the problems of our 
national policy. 

All will admit that any influence which they may 
bring, hostile to our institutions — calculated to sub- 
stitute priestcraft for religion and bigotry for Christian- 
ity — must be deprecated and opposed. All will 
admit, too, that there must be some assurance of their 
purpose to become not merely consumers of the fruits 
of our soil, but useful, loyal and permanent members 



552 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS; 

of our community, upholders of the general welfare. 
With this simple explanation, I am not disposed to 
place any check upon the welcome to foreigners.. There 
are our broad lands, stretching towards the setting 
sun ; let them come and take them. Ourselves the 
children of the Pilgrims of a former generation, let us 
not turn from the Pilgrims of the present. Let the 
home, founded hy our emigrant fathers, continue open 
in its many mansions to the emigrants of to-day. . 
" The history of our country, in its humblest as well 
as most exalted spheres, testifies to the merits of 
foreigners. Their strong arms have helped furrow our 
broad territory with canals, and stretch in every direc- 
tion the iron rail. They have filled our workshops, 
navigated our ships, and even tilled our fields. Go 
where you will, among the hardy sons of toil on land 
or sea, and there you will find industrious and faithful 
foreisrners bending; their muscles to the work. At the 
bar and in the high places of commerce, you will find 
them. Enter the retreats of learning, and there you 
will find them too, shedding vipon our country the 
glory of science. Nor can any reflection be cast upon 
foreigners, claiming hospitality now, which will not 
glance at once upon the distinguished living and the 
illustrious dead — upon the Irish Montgomery, who 
perished for us at the gates of Quebec — upon Pulaski 
the Pole, who perished for us at Savannah — upon De 
Kalb and Steuben, the generous Germans, who aided 
our weakness by their military experience — upon 
Paul Jones, the Scotchman, who lent his unsurpassed 
courage to the infant thunders of our navy — also upon 
those great European liberators, Kosciusko of Poland, 
and Lafayette of France, each of whom paid his earliest 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 553 

VOWS to Liberty in our cause. Nor should this list be 
confined to military characters, so long as we gratefully 
cherish the name of Alexander Hamilton, who was 
born in the West Indies, and the name of Albert Gal- 
latin, who was born in Switzerland, and never, to the 
close of his octogenarian career, lost the French accent 
of his boyhood — both of whom rendered civic services 
which may be commemorated among the victories of 
peace. 

Nor is the experience of our Republic peculiar. 
Where is the country or power which must not in- 
scribe the names of foreigners on its historic scroll ? 
It was Christopher Columbus, of Genoa, who disclosed 
to Spain the New World ; it was Magellan, of Portu- 
gal, sailing in the service of Spain, who first pressed 
with adventurous keel through those distant Southern 
straits which now bear his name, and opened the way 
to the vast Pacific sea ; and it was Cabot, the Venetian, 
who first conducted English enterprise to this North 
American continent. As in the triumphs of discovery, 
so, also, in other fields have foreigners excelled, while 
serving States to which they were bound by no tie of 
birth. The Dutch Grotius — author of the sublime 
work, ** The Laws of Peace and War " — an exile 
from his own country — became the Ambassador of 
Sweden, and, in our own day, the Italian Pozzo di 
Borgo, turning his back upon his own country, has 
reached the most exalted diplomatic trusts in the 
jealous service of Russia. In the list of monarchs 
on the throne of England, not one has been more truly 
English than the Dutch William. In Holland, no 
ruler has equalled in reno'VN'n the German William, 
Prince of Orange. In Russia, the German Cathar- 
47 



554 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS ; 

ine II. takes a place among the most commanding 
sovereigns. And who of the Swedish monarchs was a 
better Swede than Bernadotte, the Frenchman ; and 
what Frenchman was ever filled with aspirations for 
France more than the Italian Napoleon Bonaparte ? 

But I pass from these things, which have occupied 
me too long. A party, which, beginning in secrecy, 
interferes with religious belief, and founds a dis- 
crimination on the accident of birth, is not the party 
for us. 

It was the sentiment of that great Apostle of Free- 
dom, Benjamin Franklin, uttered during the trials of 
the Revolution, that, " Where Liberty is, there is my 
country." In similar strain, I would say, " Where 
Liberty is, there is my party." Such an organization 
is now happily constituted here in Massachusetts, and 
in all the Free States, under the name of the Repub- 
lican Party. 

In assuming our place as a distinct party, we simply 
give form and direction, in harmony with the usage 
and genius of popular governments, to a movement 
which stirs the whole country, and does not find an 
adequate and constant organ in either of the other ex- 
isting parties. The early opposition to Slavery was 
simply a sentiment, out-gushing from the hearts of the 
sensitive and humane. In the lapse of time, it became 
a determined principle, inspiring larger numbers, and 
showing itself first in an organized endeavor to resist 
the annexation of slaveholding Texas ; next, to prohibit 
Slavery in newly acquired territories : and now, alarm- 
ed by the overthrow of all rights in Kansas, and the 
domination of the Slave Oligarchy throughout the 



THE REPUBLICAN PAETY. 555 

Republic, it breaks forth in a stronger effort, a \vider 
union, and a deeper channel inspiring yet larger num- 
bers and firmer resolves, while opposite quarters con- 
tribute to its power — even as the fountain, first out- 
gushing from the weeping sides of its pure mountain 
home, trickles in the rill, leaps in the torrent, and flows 
in the river, till at last, swollen with accumulated 
waters, it presses onward, forever onward, in irresistible 
beneficent current, fertilizing and uniting the spaces 
"which it traverses, washing the feet of cities, and woo- 
ing states to repose upon its banks. 

Parties are the natural expression of a strong public 
sentiment, which seeks vent. As old controversies 
subside, the parties by which they have been conducted 
must yield to others which represent the actual life of 
the times. In obedience to this law, political parties 
in France and England — the only countries where 
these are known — have undergone mutations with 
time. In France, under the royalty of Louis Phillippe, 
the small band of republicans^ feeble at first in num- 
bers, and represented in the Legislature by a few per- 
sons only, but strong in principles and purpose, rallied 
together and at length prevailed over the old parties, 
until all were equally subverted by Louis Napoleon, 
and their place supplied by the enforced unity of des- 
potism. In England, the most brilliant popular triumph 
of her history — the repeal of the monopoly of the 
corn laws — was finally carried, by means of a newly- 
formed, but wide-spread political organization, which 
combined men of all the old parties, Whigs, Tories, 
and Radicals, and put forward the single idea of oppo- 
sition to the corn laws, as its end and aim. In the 
spirit of these examples the friends of Freedom, in 



556 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USUBPATIONS ; 

well compacted ranks, now unite " to uphold tteir 
cherished principles, and by combined efforts, accord- 
ing to the course of parties, to urge them upon the 
Government and the country. 

Our party has its origin in the exigencies of the 
hour. Vowing ourselves against Slavery wherever it 
exists, whether enforced by the Russian knout, the 
Turkish bastinado, or the lash of the Carolina planter, 
we do not seek to interfere with it at Petersburg, 
Constantinople, or Charleston ; nor does any such grave 
duty rest upon us. Our political duties are properly 
limited by our political responsibilities ; and we are 
in no just sense responsible for the local law or usage 
by which human bondage in these places is upheld. 
But wherever we are responsible for the wrong, there 
our duty begins. The object to which, as a party, we 
are pledged, is all contained in the acceptance of the 
issue which the Slave Oligardiy tenders. To its 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and its imperious 
demand that Kansas shall be surrendered to Slavery, 
we rejjly, that Freedom shall be made the universal 
law of all tjie national domain, without compromise, 
and that hereafter no Slave State shall be admitted 
into the Union. To its tyrannical assumption of su- 
premacy in the National Government, we reply that the 
Slave Oligarchy shall be overthrown. Such is the 
practical purpose of the Republican Party. 

It is to uphold and advance this cause, that we have 
come together, leaving the parties to which we have 
been respectively attached. Now, in the course of 
human events, it becomes our duty to dissolve the 
political bands which bound us to the old organiza- 
tions, and to assume a separate existence. Our Decla- 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 557 

ration of Independence has been made. Let us, in 
the spirit of our Fathers, pledge ourselves to sustain 
it with our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. 
In thus associating and harmonizing from opposite 
quarters, in order to promote a common cause, we 
have learned to forget former diflferences, and to appre- 
ciate the motives of each other. We have learned 
how trivial are the matters on which we may disagree, 
compared with the Great Issue on which we all agree. 
Old prejudices have vanished. Even the rancors of 
political antagonism have been changed and dissolved, 
as in a potent alembic, by the natural irresistible 
affinities of Freedom. In our union we have ceased 
to wear the badges of either of the old organizations. 
"We have become a new party, distinct, independent, 
permanent, under a new. name, with Liberty as our 
watchword, and our flag inscribed, " By this sign con- 
quer." 

Our object is reasonable, consistent with the Con- 
stitution, and required by just self-defence. And yet 
it is assailed from opposite quarters, and by various 
objections. 

It is even objected, that the Republican Party is 
actually injurious to the very cause we seek to promote, 
and this paradoxical accusation, which might naturally 
show itself among the rank weeds of the South, is 
cherished here on our Free Soil by those who anxiously 
look for any fig-leaf with which to cover their indiffer- 
ence or tergiversation. This peculiar form of complaint 
is an old device which has been instinctively employed 
on other occasions, until it has ceased to be even plau- 
sible. Thus, throughout all time, has every good cause 
47* 



558 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USURPATIONS ; 

been encountered. Even Wilberforce, when pressing 
the abolition of the slave trade, was told that those 
efforts by which his name is now consecrated for ever- 
more, tended to retard the cause he sought to promote, 
even to the extent of riveting ane'v/ the chains of the 
slave ; and, mentioning this great example, I may dis- 
miss the objection to the contempt it deserves. 

With more pertinacity it is objected, that ours is a 
sectional party, and the significant words of Washing- 
ton are quoted to warn the country against " geo- 
graphical " questions. This is a mere bugbear, Avith 
which to disturb timid nerves. It is a part of the 
intolerable usurpation of the Slave Oligarchy, that the 
sectional institution of Slavery is exalted to be national 
iiv its character, so that a National Whig is simply a 
Slavery Whig, and a National Democrat is simply a 
Slavery Democrat. According to the true interpreta- 
tion of the Constitution, Freedom and not Slavery is 
national, while Slavery and not Freedom is sectional. 
Now, if the Republican party proposed any measures 
calculated to operate exclusively upon any " geograph- 
ical " section, or if it sought to direct the powers of 
Congress upon Slavery in the States, then, perhaps, it 
might be obnoxious to this charge ; but as it simply 
acts against Slavery under the National jurisdiction, 
and seeks to dislodge the Slave Oligarchy from their 
usurped control of the National Government, it is 
absurd to say that it is sectional. Our aim is in no 
respect sectional, but in every respect national. It is 
in no respect against the South, but against the Evil 
Spirit at the South, which has perverted our national 
politics. As well might it be said that Washington, 
and Jcfiforson and Franklin were sectional and a2:ainst 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 559 

the South. To all who are really against sectionallsni. 
I would say, what sectionalism so dii-eful as that of 
Slavery ? To all who profess to be against isms, I 
would say, what ism so wretched as the is7n of Slavery ? 
If you are in earnest, join the National party of Free- 
dom. 

Again, it is objected that the Republican party is 
against the Union, and we are reminded of the priceless 
blessings which come from this fountain. Here is 
another bugbear. With us the Union is not the object 
of mere lip service, but it is cherished in simple sin- 
cerity, as the aged Lear was loved by his only faithful 
daughter, "according to her bond, nor more nor less." 
Our party does nothing against the Union, but every- 
thing for it. It strives to guard those great principles 
which the Union was established to secure, and thus 
to keep it ever worthy of our love. It seeks to over- 
throw that baleful Oligarchy, under which the Union 
has been changed from a vessel of honor to a vessel of 
dishonor. In this patriot work it will persevere, re- 
gardless of menace from any quarter. Not that I love 
the Union less but Freedom more, do I now, in plead- 
ing this great cause, insist that Freedom, at all hazards, 
shall be preserved. God forbid, that for the sake of 
the Union, we should sacrifice the very things for which 
the Union was made. 

And yet again, it is objected that ours is a party of 
a single idea. This is a phrase, and nothing more. 
The party may not recognize certain measures of pub- 
lic policy, deemed by some of special importance ; but 
it docs what is better, and what other parties fail to 
do. It acknowledges that beneficent principle, which, 
like the great central light, vivifies all, and without 



560 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS USUKPATIONS ; 

which all is dark and sterile. The moving cause and 
the animating soul of our party, is the idea of Freedom. 
But this idea is manifold in character and influence. 
It is the idea of the Declaration of Independence. It 
is the great idea of the founders of the Republic. It 
is the idea which combined our Fathers on the heights 
of Bunker Hill ; which carried Washington through a 
seven years' war ; which inspired Lafayette ; which 
touched with coals of fire the lips of Adams, Otis, and 
Patrick Henry. Ours is an idea, which is at least 
noble and elevating ; it is an idea which draws in its 
train virtue, goodness and all the charities of life, all 
that makes earth a home of improvement and happi- 
ness — 

" Her track, where'er the goddess roves. 
Glory pursues, and generous shame, 
The unconquerable mind and Freedom's holy flame." 

Thus do all objections disappear, even as the mists 
of morning before the sun, rejoicing like a strong man 
to run his race. The Republican party stands vindi- 
cated in every particular. It only remains that I 
should press the question with which I begun — " Are 
you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery ? " As it is 
right to be taught by the enemy, let us derive instruction 
from the Oligarchy we oppose. The three hundred and 
forty-seven thousand slave masters are always united. 
Hence their strength. Like arrows in a quiver, they 
cannot be broken. The friends of Freedom have thus 
far been divided. They, too, must be united. In the 
crisis before us, it becomes you all to forget ancient 
feuds, and those names which have been the signal of 
strife. There is no occasion to remember anything but 
our duties. When the fire-bell rings at midnight, we do 



THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 5G1 

not ask if it be "Whigs or Democrats, Protestants or 
Catholics, natives or foreigners, who join our efforts 
to extinguish the flames ; nor do we ask any such ques- 
tion in selecting our leader then. Men of all parties, 
Whigs and Democrats, or however named, let me call 
upon you to come forward and join in a common cause. 
Do not hesitate. When Freedom is in danger, all 
who are not for her are against her. The penalty of 
indifference, in such a cause, is akin to the penalty of 
ojDposition ; as is well pictured by the great Italian 
poet, when, among the saddest on the banks of Acheron 
— rending the air with outcries of torment, shrieks of 
anger and smiting of hands — he finds the troop of 
dreary souls who had been ciphers only in the great 
conflicts of life : 

" Mingled with -whom, of their disgrace the proof. 
Are the vile angels, who did not rebel, 
Nor kept their faith to God, but stood aloof. ^' 

Come forth, then, from the old organizations ; let us 
range together. Come forth, all who have stood aloof 
from parties ; here is an opportunity for action. You 
w^ho place principles above men ! come forward. All 
who feel in any way the \vrong of Slavery, take your 
stand ! Join us, ye lovers of Truth, of Justice, of 
Humanity ! And let me call especially upon the young. 
You are the natural guardians of Liberty. In your 
firm resolves and generous souls she will find her 
surest protection. The young man who is not willing 
to serve in her cause — to suff^cr, if need be, for her — 
gives little promise of those qualities which secure an 
honorable age. 

Fellow-Citizens : We found now a new party. 



562 THE SLAVE OLIGARCHY AND ITS ITSITEPATIONS. 

Its corner-stone is Freedom. Its broad, all-sustaining 
arclies are Truth, Justice, and Humanity. Like the 
ancient Roman Capitol, at once a Temple and a Citadel, 
it shall be the fit shrine for the genius of American 
Institutions. 



'''AY27im 



Su 



(! 



j>°^. 









0^ 



<?>' 

/. , 






■% 



^G 





















•s^ 



. ...... - <^ % ' 













,S' 





















^^-. <^^ 



, # ^ 










.^^ 



.^' 



^^o^ 

ii 



'% aV .^■^-^'/- % A<- - 






'cu 



.^^ 









%^'' 
.%. 



► C/^ 






A^^ 



.^ 



,V ^ 






'-1^ 






.^' 



.^-^ ^--. 












A^' 



L^- 












% "" ^°' 



<* 






gO 



^^^ 



.0 






% 
^ 






^^-.^^^ 



'<^ 



'J 



^^'<^'' 



V c. 









o^ ^. 









J" 



■0' 













3 v>» 






3 ^ - -c,. ^ 



.r% 



.cs ^^ 



V * o . V^ 



xv- 



^^0^ 

,^^-^^. 



C 







.-.c>^ 



0' 



%.<^^ 






x^ 



cS ^ 

^^^ ^ 









. 0^- 



9< 






.-^- 












\' 9 



o 






-.^^ 



5^^. 









